[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 147 (Monday, August 1, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50367-50394]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17889]



[[Page 50367]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Transit Administration

49 CFR Part 665

[Docket No. FTA-2015-0019]
RIN 2132-AB11


Bus Testing: Establishment of Performance Standards, a Bus Model 
Scoring System, a Pass/Fail Standard and Other Program Updates

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is issuing a new 
pass/fail standard and new aggregated scoring system for buses and 
modified vans (hereafter referred to as ``bus'' or ``buses'') that are 
subject to FTA's bus testing program, as mandated by Section 20014 of 
the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). The 
pass/fail standard and scoring system address the following categories 
as required by MAP-21: Structural integrity, safety, maintainability, 
reliability, fuel economy, emissions, noise, and performance. 
Recipients of FTA grants are prohibited from using FTA financial 
assistance to procure new buses that have not met the minimum 
performance standards established by today's final rule. Finally, FTA 
is requiring bus manufacturers to provide country-of-origin information 
for test unit bus components, in lieu of applying Buy America U.S. 
content requirements to all buses submitted for testing.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is October 31, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information, Michael 
Baltes, Director, Office of Infrastructure and Asset Innovation, Office 
of Research, Demonstration and Innovation (TRI), (202) 366-2182, 
[email protected]. For legal information, Richard Wong, Office of 
the Chief Counsel (TCC), (202) 366-4011, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

A. Executive Summary
B. Rulemaking Background
C. Summary of Comments and Section-by-Section Analysis
D. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Summary

Purpose

    The purpose of this final rule is to implement minimum performance 
standards, a scoring system, and a pass/fail threshold for new model 
transit buses procured with FTA financial assistance authorized under 
49 U.S.C. Chapter 53. Consistent with 49 U.S.C. 5318(e), FTA recipients 
are prohibited from using FTA financial assistance to procure new buses 
that have not met the minimum performance standards established by this 
rule. The standards and scoring system address the following 
categories: Structural integrity, safety, maintainability, reliability, 
fuel economy, emissions, noise, and performance. Buses must meet a 
minimum performance standard in each of these categories in order to 
receive an overall passing score and be eligible for purchase using FTA 
financial assistance. Buses can achieve higher scores with higher 
performance in each category, and today's rule establishes a numerical 
scoring system based on a 100-point scale so that buyers can more 
effectively compare vehicles.
    To minimize disruption to transit vehicle manufacturers, consistent 
with the proposal, today's rule adopts many of the existing testing 
procedures and standards used under the current bus testing program. 
The rule, however, imposes some changes including: (1) New inspections 
at bus check-in to verify the bus configuration is within its weight 
capacity rating at its rated passenger load and an inspection to 
determine if the major components of the test bus match those 
identified in the Buy America pre-audit report; (2) elimination of the 
on-road fuel economy testing and substituting the fuel economy results 
obtained during the emissions test; and (3) revision to the payloading 
procedure to recognize the manufacturer's ``standee'' passenger rating. 
The final rule does not add any new tests to the existing bus testing 
program--in fact, FTA is eliminating two tests, the on-road fuel 
economy test, as equivalent data could be derived from the more 
accurate dynamometer testing, and the shakedown test, which is 
considered redundant to the structural durability test and no bus 
models have historically failed this test.
    Because FTA provides financial assistance to State and local 
agencies operating public transportation systems, covering up to 
eighty-five percent (85%) of a vehicle's capital cost, while the State 
or local government provides at least fifteen percent (15%) matching 
share, there is a strong incentive by FTA and local agencies to ensure 
that those funds are used effectively and efficiently. As part of its 
stewardship of those funds, Congress directed FTA in 1987 to establish 
a bus testing program whereby new model buses would first be tested to 
ensure their ability to withstand the rigors of regular transit service 
before FTA funds would be spent on those vehicles. In the following 
years, FTA accumulated comprehensive test data on the scores of buses 
that had undergone testing, but the program did not assign a 
comparative ranking to the vehicles. Further, because the program was 
intended to provide information on a vehicle's performance and Congress 
did not authorize FTA to use the test data to disqualify a vehicle from 
participating in FTA-assisted procurements, FTA did not establish a 
pass/fail performance baseline. Since that time, several tested buses 
did not meet their expected service lives at the cost of millions of 
dollars to transit agencies and significant inconvenience to transit 
riders. In MAP-21, Congress directed FTA to establish a new pass/fail 
standard for tested buses, including a weighted scoring system that 
would assist transit bus buyers in selecting an appropriate vehicle. 
FTA issued the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for this action on 
June 23, 2015. Today's final rule establishes a new scoring system and 
a pass/fail standard for buses tested under FTA's existing bus testing 
program, as well as making other administrative changes.

Legal Authority

    Although Section 20014 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 
Century Act (MAP-21) (Pub. L. 121-141) retained the existing bus 
testing categories of maintainability, reliability, safety, 
performance, structural integrity, fuel economy, emissions, and noise 
in the existing 49 U.S.C. 5318(a), Section 20014 also expanded 49 
U.S.C. 5318(e) by adding three new requirements on the use of Chapter 
53 funding to acquire new bus models. The first is that new bus models 
must meet performance standards for maintainability, reliability, 
performance (including braking performance), structural integrity, fuel 
economy, emissions, and noise. The second is that new bus models 
acquired with Chapter 53 funds must meet the minimum safety performance 
standards established pursuant to section 5329(b). The third is that 
the new bus model must satisfy an overall pass/fail standard based on 
the weighted aggregate score derived from each of the existing test 
categories (maintainability, reliability, safety, performance 
(including braking performance), structural integrity, fuel economy, 
emissions, and noise).
    Today's rule does not address the minimum safety performance 
standards for public transportation vehicles required under 49 U.S.C.

[[Page 50368]]

5318(e)(1)(B)(ii). FTA proposed a National Public Transportation Safety 
Plan (81 FR 6372, February 5, 2016), pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(b), 
which stated that the minimum safety performance standards may 
eventually be the subject of rulemaking, proposed voluntary vehicle 
performance standards in the interim, and sought comment on four 
questions posed in the proposed Plan.

Summary of Key Provisions

    Today's rule is taking the following actions, the first of which is 
required by MAP-21 as part of the new ``pass/fail'' requirement, and 
the remainder of which are discretionary actions to strengthen the 
program:
     Establish testing procedures and establish minimum 
performance standards, which are generally based upon the pre-MAP-21 
tests, and a pass/fail scoring system for new bus models, with a 
minimum passing score of 60 points. A bus model could receive up to an 
additional 40 points based on its performance above the proposed 
minimum performance standard in particular test categories. Buses would 
need to achieve at least a minimum score in each category in order to 
pass the overall test and be eligible for procurement using FTA 
financial assistances.
     Establish check-in procedures, including FTA approval, for 
new bus models proposed for testing.
     Require transit vehicle manufacturers to submit 
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goals to FTA prior to 
scheduling a test.
     Determine a new bus model's total passenger load based on 
the manufacturer's maximum passenger rating, including accommodations 
for standees.
     Establish a simulated passenger weight of 150 lbs. for 
seated and standing (standee) passengers, and a weight of 600 lbs. for 
passengers who use wheelchairs.
     Require test model buses to identify the country-of-origin 
for the components of the test vehicle to facilitate a transit agency's 
ability to compare it with the actual production model.
     The replacement of the on-road fuel economy test with the 
fuel economy testing already conducted during the emissions test on the 
chassis dynamometer.
    Generally, FTA is adopting the test procedures that were proposed 
in the NPRM, although FTA, is making a small number of changes to some 
test procedures as a result of comments received in response to the 
NPRM. FTA is adding a set of brake stops at gross passenger load as 
part of the Braking Test; measuring noise levels while traversing road 
irregularities as part of the Noise Test; and eliminating the Shakedown 
Test and moving its single point score value into the Structural 
Durability Test. Further, FTA is not adopting the proposal that the 
test unit bus must be Buy America-compliant. Instead, FTA only is 
requiring that the manufacturer provide the country of origin for the 
test vehicle's major components, which FTA believes will help transit 
agencies ensure that the tested bus is similar to the bus the will be 
completed in production. In addition, FTA is making a few non-
substantive amendments, replacing the term ``grantee'' with 
``recipient'' to bring it into conformity with standard FTA usage, and 
cross-referencing FTA Circular 5010's categorization of a vehicle's 
useful service life instead of repeating it in the regulatory text.
    The NPRM sought comment on establishing testing procedures, 
performance standards, and a scoring system for remanufactured vehicles 
sold by third-party vendors and procured using FTA financial 
assistance. Based on the comments received, FTA has concluded that 
further consideration is warranted, and therefore, is not extending the 
bus testing requirement to remanufactured buses through today's final 
rule. Given the growing investment in Federal and local dollars in 
remanufactured buses, however, and the emphasis on public transit 
safety in MAP-21, FTA believes that it is responsible Federal 
stewardship to ensure that remanufactured buses meet expectations for 
reliability and durability and will address remanufactured buses in a 
subsequent rulemaking action.

Summary of Benefits and Costs

    Table 1 below summarizes the potential benefits and costs of this 
rule that FTA was able to quantify over 10 years and using a 3 and 7 
percent discount rate. Quantified costs stem from shipping buses to the 
testing facility, manufacturer testing fees, having repair personnel 
for bus manufacturers available at the testing site, new paperwork 
requirements, and increases to the resources needed to operate the bus 
testing program (which represents most of the quantified costs). 
Unquantified costs include remedial actions to buses that do not pass 
the proposed test (which may extend to all the buses in a model 
represented by the tested bus) and potential improvements to buses to 
obtain a higher testing score. However, given that 41 of 49 buses 
tested between January 2010 and February 2013 would have satisfied the 
proposed performance standards without any design changes, FTA believes 
that the proposed requirements would not drive systemic changes to all 
transit bus models. Quantified benefits are from a reduction in 
unscheduled maintenance costs. The total annual program cost impact of 
this rule is estimated to be $159,369. The total annual program benefit 
is estimated to be $531,990. The resulting cost and benefits are 
presented in Table 1.

                                Table 1--Summary of Quantified Costs and Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Discounted net benefits @
              Year                     Costs         Benefits      Net cash flow -------------------------------
                                                                                        3%              7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................        $159,369        $531,990        $372,621        $361,768        $348,244
2...............................         159,369         531,990         372,621         351,231         325,462
3...............................         159,369         531,990         372,621         341,001         304,170
4...............................         159,369         531,990         372,621         331,069         284,271
5...............................         159,369         531,990         372,621         321,426         265,674
6...............................         159,369         531,990         372,621         312,064         248,293
7...............................         159,369         531,990         372,621         302,975         232,050
8...............................         159,369         531,990         372,621         294,150         216,869
9...............................         159,369         531,990         372,621         285,583         202,681
10..............................         159,369         531,990         372,621         277,265         189,422
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 50369]]

 
    Net Present Value...........  ..............  ..............  ..............       3,178,533       2,617,134
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Background

    FTA's grant programs, including those at 49 U.S.C. 5307, 5310, 5311 
and 5339, assist transit agencies with procuring buses. The Federal 
transit program allows FTA to provide up to 85% funding for each bus. 
In 2013, for example, FTA funds assisted in the procurement of 8,934 
new vehicles, of which approximately 5,600 buses and modified vans were 
covered under the existing testing program. The testing program has its 
origins in Section 317 of the Surface Transportation and Uniform 
Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (STURAA, Pub. L. 100-17), which 
provided that no funds appropriated or made available under the Urban 
Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended, were to be obligated or 
expended for the acquisition of a new model bus after September 30, 
1989, unless a bus of such model had been tested to ensure that the 
vehicle ``will be able to withstand the rigors of transit service'' (H. 
Rept. 100-27, p. 230). In subsection 317(b), Congress mandated seven 
specific test categories--maintainability, reliability, safety, 
performance, structural integrity, fuel economy, and noise--augmenting 
those tests with the addition of braking performance and emissions 
testing through section 6021 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-240). These requirements were 
subsequently codified at 49 U.S.C. 5318.
    FTA issued its initial NPRM in May 1989 (54 FR 22716, May 25, 1989) 
and an interim Final Rule three months later (54 FR 35158, August 23, 
1989), establishing a bus testing program that submitted vehicles to 
seven statutorily-mandated tests resulting in a test report and 
requiring transit bus manufacturers to submit that completed test 
report to transit agencies before FTA funds could be expended to 
purchase those vehicles. Although Congress did not authorize FTA to 
withhold financial assistance for a vehicle based on the data contained 
in a test report, FTA expected that the test report would provide 
accurate and reliable bus performance information to transit 
authorities that could be used in their purchasing and operational 
decisions.
    This system remained in place for over twenty years. During the 
intervening period, however, a handful of bus models that had 
documented problems in their test reports were able to enter transit 
service, most notably, a fleet of 226 articulated buses that one of the 
Nation's largest transit agencies ordered in 2001. After paying $87.7M 
of the $102.1M contract, the transit agency stopped payments in 2005 
due to unresolved problems concerning the suspension systems and 
structural cracks around the articulation joint, near the axles, and in 
the rear door header, triggering years of litigation. In addition, in 
2009, the transit agency abruptly pulled all of these models from 
service for safety concerns following a structural failure related to 
the articulation joint, resulting in lengthier and more crowded 
commutes for thousands of transit riders. In May 2012, a local court 
ruled that the transit agency could sell the buses for scrap metal, a 
move that generated only $1.2M for vehicles that had served barely half 
of their FTA-funded service lives.
    In 2012, MAP-21 amended 49 U.S.C. 5318 by adding new requirements 
to subsection 5318(e), Acquiring New Bus Models. Importantly, it 
shifted the program to one where recipients could only use FTA funding 
to procure buses that passed FTA's testing program, which now included 
a bus model scoring system and a pass/fail standard based on the 
weighted aggregate score for each of the existing performance standards 
(maintainability, reliability, performance (including braking 
performance), structural integrity, fuel economy, emissions, and 
noise).
    MAP-21 also amended section 5318(e) to require that new bus models 
meet the minimum safety performance standards to be established by the 
Secretary of Transportation pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(b). In the 
recently-proposed National Public Transportation Safety Plan (81 FR 
6372, February 5, 2016), FTA proposed to establish voluntary vehicle 
performance standards as an interim measure, acknowledging that minimum 
safety performance standards eventually may be the subject of 
rulemaking, and sought comment on four questions posed in the proposed 
Plan.
    The primary purpose of today's rule is to establish minimum 
performance standards, a new bus model scoring system, and a pass/fail 
standard. In developing the proposals contained in the NPRM, FTA 
engaged in extensive discussions with transit industry stakeholders 
through the use of public webinars, teleconferences, and presentations 
at industry conferences. Participants in these public outreach efforts 
included transit vehicle manufacturers, component suppliers, public 
transit agencies, State departments of transportation, and Bus Testing 
Facility personnel, and their contributions were reflected in the 
aggregate scoring system and pass/fail criteria contained in the NPRM.
    In addition to implementing the statutory mandates, FTA proposed 
other administrative changes that would adjust the passenger payloading 
process to better reflect industry practice and ensure that buses 
tested at the facility comply with FTA Civil Rights and Buy America 
requirements regarding disadvantaged business enterprises and domestic 
content, respectively.
    Finally, FTA sought comment on establishing a bus testing 
requirement and scoring system for remanufactured buses sold by third 
parties and procured using FTA funds.

C. Summary of Comments and Section-by-Section Analysis

    FTA received a total of 22 comments in response to the NPRM, 
including comments from transit bus manufacturers, remanufacturers of 
transit buses, national and state transit associations, and transit 
agencies procuring transit buses. FTA also received several comments 
from fire safety advocates and component manufacturers, who urged FTA 
to adopt fire safety standards for materials used in bus interiors, 
including bus seats, which exceed Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(FMVSS) 302. As noted above, although Congress directed FTA to 
establish minimum safety performance standards for vehicles used in 
public transportation in 49 U.S.C. 5329(b), FTA has not yet initiated 
such a rulemaking and those comments, however well-intentioned, are 
beyond the scope of today's regulatory action.

[[Page 50370]]

    Although today's final rule contains much of what was proposed in 
the NPRM, FTA is making some changes to the test procedures as a result 
of comments received in response to the NPRM. FTA is adding a set of 
brake stops at gross passenger load as part of the Braking Test; 
measuring noise levels while traversing road irregularities as part of 
the Noise Test; and eliminating the Shakedown Test and moving its 
single point score value into the Structural Durability Test. Further, 
FTA is removing the proposal that the test unit bus be Buy America-
compliant, and instead, is only requiring the manufacturer to provide 
the country of origin for the test vehicle's major components, which 
FTA believes will help transit agencies ensure that the tested bus is 
similar to the bus that will be produced and delivered. In addition, 
FTA is making a few non-substantive technical amendments, replacing the 
term ``grantee'' with ``recipient'' to bring it into conformity with 
standard FTA usage, and cross-referencing FTA Circular 5010's 
categorization of a vehicle's useful service life instead of repeating 
it in the regulatory text.

Section 665.1 Purpose

    FTA proposed to amend the purpose of the regulation to reflect a 
new pass/fail test and scoring system.
    Comments Received: FTA did not receive any comments on this 
section.
    Agency Response: FTA is including this section in the final rule 
without change.

Section 665.3 Scope

    FTA proposed no changes, as the requirements of this part continue 
to apply to recipients of Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. 
Chapter 53.
    Comments Received: FTA did not receive any comments on this 
section.
    Agency Response: FTA is including this section in the final rule 
without change.

Section 665.5 Definitions

    FTA proposed changing the definition of Curb Weight from ``Curb 
weight means the weight of the empty, ready-to-operate bus plus driver 
and fuel.'' to ``Curb weight means the weight of the bus including 
maximum fuel, oil, and coolant; but without passengers or driver.''
    FTA proposed changing the definition of Gross Weight from ``Gross 
weight, also gross vehicle weight, means the curb weight of the bus 
plus passengers simulated by adding 150 pounds of ballast to each 
seating position and 150 pounds for each standing position (assumed to 
be each 1.5 square feet of free floor space).'' to ``the seated load 
weight of the bus plus 150 pounds of ballast for each rated standee 
passenger, up to and including, the maximum rated standee passenger 
capacity identified on the bus interior bulkhead''.
    FTA proposed changing the definition of Seated Load Weight from 
``Seated load weight means the weight of the bus plus driver, fuel, and 
seated passengers simulated by adding 150 pounds of ballast to each 
seating position.'' to ``the curb weight of the bus plus seated 
passengers simulated by adding 150 pounds of ballast to each seating 
position and 600 pounds per wheelchair position.'' This 600 pound 
figure is based on the minimum load-bearing capacity for wheelchair 
lifts and ramps in the USDOT's accessible bus specifications at 49 CFR 
38.23(b)(1) and (c)(1).
    Comments Received: FTA received two comments on this section. One 
commenter suggested that buses be tested at their maximum Gross Vehicle 
Weight Rating (GVWR) and Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR), and that 
loading a bus based on the number of seated and standing passengers 
(using a simulated weight of 150 pounds for each passenger and 600 
pounds for each wheelchair location) would not accurately reflect a 
fully loaded bus or actual operating conditions. The other commenter 
sought clarification about the simulated passenger payload of 150 
pounds per person, believing that FTA had raised it to 175 pounds in a 
previous regulatory action.
    Agency Response: FTA does not support testing a bus at its maximum 
GVWR and GAWR for several reasons. First, unlike trucks that transport 
cargo and axle loads that must be monitored, buses transport people and 
are loaded based on the number of available seat/wheelchair positions 
and the amount of open floor space where standees are allowed by the 
bus operator, regardless of the vehicle's weight ratings. Second, in 
actual transit use, the capacity of a transit bus is not based on the 
vehicle's GVWR or GAWR limit, but rather, on the vehicle's actual 
passenger capacity. FTA will allow bus manufacturers to request that 
the bus be loaded up to its maximum weight rating when the resulting 
gross vehicle weight at the manufacturer's rated passenger load is less 
than the GVWR to allow the manufacturer the flexibility to adjust the 
seating layouts up to the full weight capacity of the bus model. If a 
bus's advertised passenger capacity is well below its weight ratings, a 
manufacturer may not increase the length of the vehicle to accommodate 
additional passengers because an increase in the length of a tested bus 
model is considered a major change in configuration and could result in 
additional testing.
    With regard to the commenter who sought clarification on the 
simulated passenger weight, FTA had proposed raising the weight from 
150 pounds to 175 pounds in a 2011 Federal Register Notice (76 FR 
13580, March 14, 2011), but that proposal was subsequently withdrawn 
(77 FR 76597, December 14, 2012).
    Therefore, FTA is adopting this section in the final rule without 
change.

Remanufactured Buses

    FTA also posed a series of questions seeking comment on whether 
remanufactured buses (i.e., previously owned buses that have undergone 
substantial structural, mechanical, electrical, and/or cosmetic 
rebuilding and are sold to a transit agency other than the vehicle's 
original owner) should be subject to the bus testing requirement. As 
FTA explained in the NPRM, FTA had not previously extended the testing 
requirements to these types of buses because, until recently, transit 
agencies were only rebuilding their existing buses as part of their 
fleet maintenance. However, FTA is aware that remanufactured buses are 
now being offered by third-parties to transit agencies as a less 
expensive alternative to acquiring new buses. FTA therefore is 
concerned that these models could be introduced as de facto new buses 
or purchased in lieu of new buses, without having to go through the 
same testing requirements as a new bus model. However, because FTA had 
various questions about how to apply the bus testing program to this 
category of vehicles, FTA sought comment through the NPRM.
    One manufacturer of new transit buses, one transit agency, one 
trade association, and two bus remanufacturers submitted comments, all 
of whom agreed that remanufactured buses need to meet safety and 
durability requirements, but disagreeing on the preferred method. The 
manufacturer of new buses supported the standardized testing of 
remanufactured buses, believing that ``remanufactured buses should 
undergo the same rigorous testing that new buses and coaches must meet 
in order to ensure their safety and reliability,'' recommending that 
the final rule include provisions that ensure that the original bus 
manufacturer is not referenced in a test report to limit confusion and 
to prevent a company from selling remanufactured vehicles using the 
original bus manufacturer's name for marketing purposes. In

[[Page 50371]]

contrast, the remanufacturers said their vehicles already undergo 
extensive testing and analysis before, during, and after the 
remanufacturing process to ensure the vehicles' safety and durability, 
and that additional testing at Altoona would be ineffective and 
redundant.
    FTA is also aware that procuring remanufactured buses is being 
advertised in trade magazines and at trade shows as a less expensive 
alternative to procuring a newly built bus, and submitting both new and 
remanufactured vehicles to the same testing program could place both on 
an equal footing and ensure the safety and reliability of each. 
Furthermore, the national trade association's comments noted some 
issues within the trucking industry related to remanufactured equipment 
that could compromise safety and reliability of vehicles. Given 
Congressional direction in MAP-21 to augment FTA's safety 
responsibilities and to strengthen the bus testing program through 
today's regulatory changes, FTA believes the subject of remanufactured 
buses should undergo further review and consideration and will address 
the subject in a later rulemaking.

Section 665.7 Certification of Compliance

    FTA proposed to amend this section to reflect that the recipient 
must certify that a bus has received a passing test score, but 
acknowledging that parties may seek assistance from FTA, consistent 
with FTA's role in reviewing partial testing requests as described in 
section 665.11(d). FTA is also removing the term ``Grantee'' from the 
section heading and throughout this part, as FTA now uses the term 
``recipient.''
    Comments Received: FTA did not receive any comments on this 
section.
    Agency Response: FTA is including this section in the final rule 
without change.

Section 665.11 Testing Requirements

    FTA proposed new entrance requirements for a bus to enter the bus 
testing program. Before submitting a new bus model for testing, the 
transit vehicle manufacturer (TVM) would have to submit its 
disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) goals to FTA consistent with 
the Department's DBE regulations in 49 CFR part 26. Test model buses 
would also need to comply with applicable FMVSS requirements in 49 CFR 
part 566, Manufacturer Identification; 49 CFR part 567, Certification; 
and 49 CFR part 568, Vehicle Manufactured in Two or More Stages--All 
Incomplete, Intermediate and Final-Stage Manufacturers of Vehicle 
Manufactured in Two or More Stages. Bus models would also need to 
identify the maximum rated quantity of standee passengers identified on 
the interior bulkhead in 2 inch tall or greater characters; be capable 
of negotiating the Durability Test course at the requisite test speed 
under all conditions of loading (curb weight, SLW, and GVW); and be 
capable of following the test duty cycles used for Fuel Economy and 
Emissions Tests within the test procedure for allowable speed 
deviation. Lastly, FTA proposed that bus models submitted would need to 
satisfy the domestic content requirements for rolling stock in 49 CFR 
part 661, Buy America Requirements.
    FTA also proposed a technical amendment to section 665.11(g) 
reflecting the addition of Appendix B to this part, resulting in the 
relabeling of the former appendix as the new ``Appendix A.''
    Comments Received: FTA received multiple comments on this section. 
One commenter supported applying the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise 
(DBE) and Buy America requirement to bus models submitted for testing, 
stating that an inspection of a vehicle's domestic content prior to 
introducing a new foreign bus model is vital to preserve the integrity 
and reliability of the testing program and provides a level playing 
field among competitors, noting the importance of the test unit 
matching the composition of subsequent production units. Another 
commenter indicated that documentation of the vehicle's domestic 
content will assist future purchasers to assess the impact that changes 
in components could have on a vehicle's Buy America compliance. In 
contrast, several commenters opposed the Buy America content proposal--
two noted that the buses submitted for testing are typically the 
private property of the bus manufacturer and are not being procured 
with FTA funds, with FTA funding serving as a determinant of Buy 
America applicability. Another commenter indicated that the requirement 
will discourage innovation by locking buses into a particular 
configuration and leaving no leeway for the introduction of new 
technologies. Another commenter requested that FTA consider alternative 
bus service life categories that account for the risk to grantees that 
procure new technology vehicles.
    Agency Response: FTA is eliminating the proposed Buy America 
content requirement from section 665.11(a)(5) in the final rule. 
Instead, FTA will require that the manufacturing country of origin for 
the test vehicle's major components be documented by the TVM during the 
test scheduling process--these would include the vehicle shell, axles, 
brakes, propulsion power system and auxiliary power systems (engine, 
transmission, traction batteries, electric motor(s), fuel cell(s)), and 
the primary energy storage and delivery systems (fuel tanks, fuel 
injectors & manifolds, and the fuel injection electronic control unit).
    This is a modification from the NPRM, which proposed that all buses 
submitted for testing meet the domestic content requirements of the FTA 
Buy America regulation. The primary focus of the proposal was to ensure 
that the design configuration of the test unit bus matched subsequent 
production units. However, commenters made FTA aware that the test unit 
bus may not be fully representative of all production units, and that 
grantees have the ability to specify changes in a production unit's 
components and configuration. These changes may subject the bus to 
additional testing, but that is a decision that the purchaser must 
knowingly make. In addition, bus models delivered for testing do not 
always include all of the ancillary systems (seats, wheelchair tie-
downs, passenger information systems, etc.) that may well be part of 
the domestic content calculation of a particular bus procurement but 
these systems are not evaluated by the bus testing program, nor are 
they required in order for the vehicle to under testing. Finally, 
changes in, or the inclusion of, components may also alter a production 
vehicle's domestic content, and documenting the test unit vehicle's 
domestic content in a permanent test report may give a false indication 
of a vehicle's Buy America content. FTA acknowledges that the pre-award 
and post-delivery audits required by 49 U.S.C. 5323(m) and 49 CFR part 
663 are the only acceptable confirmation of a vehicle's Buy America 
compliance and for that reason, TVMs will not be required to document a 
vehicle's compliance with Buy America during the check-in process.
    However, because the primary objective of the proposed requirement 
was to ensure that the design configuration of the test unit bus 
(structure design and materials, axles and brakes, and propulsion 
system and fuel systems) was representative of the production unit 
buses that would be delivered to FTA grantees, FTA is requiring TVMs to 
provide information concerning the source of essential vehicle 
components so that purchasers will have an effective means of comparing 
the test unit bus against the specific vehicle they intend to procure.

[[Page 50372]]

    Lastly, to acknowledge the broader applicability of FTA's service 
life categories other than simply as a means of determining a vehicle's 
testing procedure, FTA is removing the list of vehicle service life 
categories in section 665.11(e) and will instead incorporate the 
service life categories contained in FTA's Circular 5010.1.

Section 665.13 Test Report and Manufacturer Certification

    FTA proposed adding language to this section that would require the 
Bus Testing Facility operator to score the test results using the 
performance standards and scoring system outlined in Appendix A of this 
part. FTA also proposed that the Bus Testing Facility operator obtain 
approval of the Bus Testing Report by the bus manufacturer and by FTA 
prior to its release and publication. Finally, FTA proposed that the 
Bus Testing Facility operator make the test results available 
electronically to supplement the printed copies.
    Comments Received: FTA did not receive any comments on this 
section.
    Agency Response: FTA is including this section in the final rule 
without change.

Section 665.21 Scheduling

    FTA proposed that all requests for testing, including requests for 
full or partial testing, be submitted to the FTA Bus Testing Program 
Manager prior to scheduling with the Bus Testing Facility operator. All 
test requests would provide: a detailed description of the new bus 
model to be tested, the service life category of the bus, engineering 
level documentation characterizing all major changes to the bus model, 
and documentation that demonstrates satisfaction of each one of the 
testing requirements outlined in section 665.11(a). FTA would review 
the test request and determine if the bus model is eligible for testing 
and which tests need to be performed. FTA would prepare a written 
response to the requester for use in scheduling the required testing 
with the Bus Testing Facility operator.
    Comments Received: FTA received two comments on this section. Both 
comments asked FTA to commit to a maximum amount of time to review the 
test requests and provide a response to the requester.
    Agency Response: FTA will commit to reviewing the test request and 
providing an initial response within five business days. Some requests, 
particularly requests for partial testing of a bus model that has 
undergone the testing process but is subsequently produced with a 
change in configuration or component, may require additional time to 
review the specific design and engineering changes proposed and provide 
a final response.

Section 665.23 Fees

    FTA proposed that the manufacturer's share of the test fee would be 
expended first during the testing procedure and that the Bus Testing 
Facility operator would obtain approval from FTA prior to committing 
FTA program funds.
    Comments Received: FTA did not receive any comments on this 
section.
    Agency Response: FTA is including this section in the final rule 
without change.

Section 665.25 Transportation of Vehicle

    FTA did not propose any changes.
    Comments Received: FTA did not receive any comments on this 
section.
    Agency Response: FTA is including this section in the final rule 
without change.

Section 665.27 Procedures During Testing

    FTA proposed additional language for this section to require the 
Bus Testing Facility operator to inspect the bus model configuration 
upon arrival to compare it to that submitted in the test request; to 
compare the gross vehicle weight and gross axle weights to the ratings 
on the bus; to determine if the bus model can negotiate the test track 
and maintain proper test speed over the durability, fuel economy and 
emission drive cycles; and to provide these results to the bus 
manufacturer and FTA prior to conducting testing using FTA program 
funds.
    FTA also proposed additional language to require the Bus Testing 
Facility operator to investigate each occurrence of unsupervised 
maintenance and assess the impact on the validity of the test results 
and to repeat any impacted test results at the manufacturer's expense. 
FTA also proposed language to address modifications to bus models 
undergoing testing. Specifically, FTA proposed that the Bus Testing 
Facility operator perform or supervise and document the performance of 
bus modifications only after the modifications have been reviewed and 
approved by FTA. The language also stated that testing would be halted 
after the occurrence of unsupervised bus modifications and the Bus 
Testing Facility operator would not resume testing until FTA has issued 
a determination regarding the modifications.
    In addition, FTA proposed moving the listing of test categories 
from Appendix A into section 665.27 and assigning performance standards 
to each of the test categories as MAP-21 requires. FTA proposed 
amending the Performance Test category by removing the language 
regarding the Braking Performance Test and moving it into the Safety 
Test category. FTA also proposed adding the requirement for a review of 
the Class 1 failures documented in the Reliability Test category to the 
Safety Test category.
    Comments Received and Agency Response: FTA received numerous 
comments on this section. One commenter asked how many days FTA would 
need to perform the test readiness review and issue a decision 
regarding the start of testing. The other comments on this section were 
pertaining to the specific tests and the proposed performance 
standards, which are summarized as follows:
Structural Integrity
    There were nine comments on the Structural Integrity test category 
and the associated performance standards. In response to comments, 
several refinements were applied to the final rule.
    FTA received two comments concerning the Shakedown test and 
performance standard, with one recommending a maximum deflection of 
0.100 inch to account for the floor load of a passenger on a wheeled 
mobility device, the second challenging the relevance of the test and 
considering it to be redundant with the test track durability test. The 
Shakedown test in section 665.27(h)(5)(i)(1) has been eliminated as FTA 
believes that this test is a legacy test procedure that pre-dates the 
bus testing program and provided a means to verify a level of 
structural integrity at a transit agency facility in lieu of performing 
a test track durability test. Any incremental value provided by the 
Shakedown test in light of the Structural Durability test performed on 
the test track is not apparent.
    One commenter inquired whether the Dynamic Towing test would 
capture any structural or other types of failures throughout the bus 
and if the test was performed in a stop-and-go manner including the 
negotiation of turns. FTA is not making any changes to section 
665.27(h)(5)(i)(4) regarding the Dynamic Towing test and performance 
standard. The Dynamic Towing test is a demonstration that the bus can 
be safely and effectively towed by a common heavy duty vehicle tow 
truck, without regard to operational usage or negotiation of turns. The 
test, however, does induce unique loads into the bus structure and on 
the rear axle of the bus,

[[Page 50373]]

as the five-mile towing distance performed during the test is 
continuous around the paved test loop.
    One commenter questioned the relevance of the Jacking test and 
recommend that FTA seek the input of transit operators. FTA is not 
revising section 665.27(h)(5)(i)(5), the Jacking test. FTA believes 
that this test remains relevant, that a bus model that fails to meet 
the performance standard could be a significant operational problem for 
transit operators, and that the time and cost burdens of conducting the 
test are minimal.
    Another commenter suggested that FTA consider evaluating the 
corrosion resistance of bus models during the structural durability 
test. One commenter offered a proposal to evaluate the corrosion 
resistance of new bus models. FTA considered this proposal and believes 
that this non-testing based evaluation does not provide sufficient 
technical analysis on which to base a score, in addition to being 
outside the scope of this rulemaking.
    One commenter proposed that FTA to make bus models available to 
component suppliers to use for partial testing programs to enable the 
development of robust aftermarket components and new technology 
subsystems. While this is an interesting proposal, this is also outside 
the scope of today's rulemaking and FTA would need a significant 
increase in funding in order to acquire and maintain a fleet of buses 
to serve as platforms for the testing of new components and 
technologies.
Structural Integrity--Durability
    There were several comments requesting clarification on the 
implications of the proposed durability performance standards and 
suggestions for alternatives methods for evaluating both structural and 
powertrain durability of new bus models, components, and subsystems.
    First, FTA was asked to clarify the types of failures that invoke a 
failure to meet the durability performance standard and the process for 
resolving those failures. The commenter wanted to know if there were 
certain types of failures that would automatically trigger a test 
restart, if FTA could commit to a response time to provide feedback 
about the proposed design remedy to resolve a durability failure. The 
commenter proposed that FTA consider not requiring a mile-for-mile 
validation of structural durability failures that are not Class 1 or 
Class 2 level reliability failures through the use of stress and strain 
measurements and common structure modeling techniques, and suggested 
that FTA allow the durability test to continue after a durability 
performance standard failure so that testing can progress while the bus 
manufacturer prepares the design remedy.
    To clarify, then, for the structural durability performance 
standard, any discontinuity (e.g., cracking, deformation, or 
separation) that develops during the test in any of the bus material 
elements that are permanently affixed, through welding or other bonding 
methods including non-serviceable fasteners such as rivets, whose 
function is to bear the weight of the vehicle or the weight of the 
passengers, or maintain the physical geometry of other load bearing 
elements and openings in the bus body, or that secure and retain other 
non-bonded bus body components will be considered a failure to meet 
this performance standard. Material discontinuities that develop during 
the test in the main frame rails and the frame cross-members on body-
on-frame bus models will also be considered a failure of the structural 
durability performance standard. For the powertrain durability 
performance standard, all malfunctions of bus powertrain system will be 
classified as a failure of the powertrain durability performance 
standard until remedied and validated. Structural failures of the 
powertrain components, including any associated bracketry, mounts, 
cradles, and fasteners used to physically attach the components to the 
bus body or frame are also considered a failure of the powertrain 
durability performance standard.
    If the Durability test reveals a durability performance standard 
failure, the structural durability test will be paused awaiting a 
proposed design remedy from the bus manufacturer. FTA will review the 
proposed remedy and provide a response to the proposed design remedy 
within five business days. The intent of the FTA review is to evaluate 
that the proposed design modification is relevant to the failure mode 
and that it is suitable for production.
    FTA will employ the existing partial testing policy for powertrain 
changes or updates to new bus models that are subject to the Pass/Fail 
rule. Currently, FTA focuses on the engine, transmission fuel system, 
and drive axle to assess if partial testing is needed. Once each of 
these new components has been tested in a bus, FTA allows their use in 
subsequent bus models without additional testing based on FTA's 
experience that the replacement of these components is not likely to 
significantly alter existing test data in the Bus Testing Report. While 
the scope of the powertrain durability performance standard casts a 
wider net than the partial testing policy for powertrain changes, bus 
manufacturers will be allowed to substitute minor powertrain components 
not currently tracked by the current partial testing policy if a 
credible analysis is provided that demonstrates the component 
substitution is durable in a transit service environment and that 
secondary failures of the primary powertrain components are not induced 
if the substituted component fails. FTA does not believe that the 
supply of aftermarket parts available to transit operator for 
maintaining their buses will be negatively affected by the powertrain 
durability performance standard. FTA only requires that the buses 
remain in service for at least their designated service life. Grantees 
do not have to maintain the original design configuration throughout a 
vehicle's service life and may replace components and major subsystems 
over the vehicle's lifespan.
    Commenters also sought clarification regarding the inclusion of 
electric bus model off-board charging equipment in the powertrain 
durability performance standard. Currently, all battery bus chargers 
are unique to the bus models. If the charging system fails to perform, 
the bus can only operate on the remaining charge. For bus fleets that 
employ bus models designed for overnight charging, FTA assumes that 
more than one battery charger will be available at the bus depot, 
providing a charging system redundancy that can be leveraged to 
maintain bus operations. These battery chargers would not be considered 
as part of the vehicle's powertrain. For bus models designed 
specifically for on-route charging, the off-board charging system and 
the on-board charging system interfaces are considered part of the bus 
powertrain. Additionally, since all bus charging systems are unique, 
all electric bus models are subject to the testing requirement. The Bus 
Testing Facility operator provides access to a high voltage source for 
the battery charger, while the TVM or component vendor is expected to 
provide the battery charger with the bus model to be tested. Once 
battery charging systems for buses become standardized, FTA will pursue 
their installation at the test site.
    Various commenters also proposed alternative durability tests. 
First, one commenter proposed the use of a risk assessment and field 
monitoring process for the introduction of new bus technologies on an 
existing bus model

[[Page 50374]]

as a substitute for performing partial testing. While this concept has 
some merit, it would not satisfy the current legislative mandate to 
conduct actual testing and additional program resources would need to 
be made available in order to execute this type of program. Another 
commenter requested that FTA reduce the amount of additional test 
mileage required to validate a design modification in the event of a 
failure to meet the durability performance standard. This commenter 
suggested a combination of stress and strain measurements and 
analytical models to be used to validate that the probability of the 
stress induced structural discontinuities in the bus have been reduced 
or eliminated with the new design. FTA considered the merits of this 
proposal and has decided that in cases where there is not enough 
remaining mileage in a test procedure to validate the design change on 
an actual mileage basis, FTA will consider the manufacturer's efforts 
to characterize the material stresses through measurements, analyses, 
and other engineering work to determine an adequate test distance to 
validate the analysis and the proposed design remedy.
Safety
    There were multiple comments related to the Safety test category. 
Seven commenters recommended that FTA consider heightened standards 
with respect to the flammability of interior materials to address the 
inadequacies of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 302. 
Although establishing fire safety standards for bus testing program is 
outside the scope of the NPRM, FTA reviewed the large number of vehicle 
interior fire safety information submitted by various commenters. FTA 
notes that updating FMVSS 302 is not within FTA's regulatory authority 
and suggests that commenters direct their comments to the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the U.S. DOT mode responsible 
for maintaining the FMVSS.
    Another commenter suggested that FTA establish a requirement for 
the use of collision avoidance systems in transit buses, while another 
recommended that FTA establish crashworthiness test standards for 
buses. The commenter's recommendation to establish safety performance 
standards to require collision avoidance systems and crumple zone or 
other crashworthiness standards on transit buses are not within the 
scope of the NPRM, as is the proposal to establish braking standards 
for emergency stops on a grade and the recommendation to adopt 
performance standards for wheeled mobility device securement devices.
    One recommended that the acceleration test be inserted into the 
Safety test category and that FTA adopt performance standards for 
mobility aid securement devices. The suggestion to move the 
acceleration test into the Safety test category is not being adopted 
because FTA believes this test is more pertinent to the vehicle's 
performance, rather than affecting the vehicle's safety.
    Additional commenters sought clarification on the definition of 
Class 1 failures. With regard to the commenter who sought clarification 
on whether structural failures should be addressed as hazards, FTA 
considers the following types of test incidents as Class 1 reliability 
failures resulting in a failure to satisfy the hazards performance 
standard: (1) the loss or degradation of the obstacle avoidance 
capability (braking, steering, & acceleration/speed control) of the bus 
due to a component malfunction. For example, a loss of power steering 
is considered a Class 1 reliability failure due to the expected 
increase in the force required to turn the steering wheel, reducing the 
rate of directional change a driver can effect into the bus and 
compromising its ability to avoid an obstacle; (2) the occurrence of a 
fire or the potential for a fire (e.g. fuel leak in the presence of an 
ignition source, electrical short circuit, leaks of other flammable 
fluids near an ignition or heat source); (3) major structural failures 
that can induce conditions (1) or (2) above, or lead to a physical 
compromise of the passenger compartment (an unintended exposure to the 
outside environment or physical trauma to a passenger) or degrades the 
ability of a passenger to exit the bus.
    Regarding the proposed testing and performance standards for 
Braking, one commenter recommended the elimination of the brake 
stopping distance test and the use of FMVSS certification testing 
results. Another commenter recommended that the buses be weighted to 
the maximum gross passenger load for the braking test, and another 
asked FTA to establish additional brake performance requirements for 
stopping on a grade. The commenter's suggestion to eliminate the 
stopping distance test was not accommodated, as a braking performance 
test is required by statute, and FMVSS compliance is based on self-
certification, whereas FTA's is based on actual test data. FTA is 
adopting the suggestion to conduct the stopping distance test at a full 
passenger load by conducting an additional set of brake stops at gross 
passenger load. However, the stopping distance performance standard 
will be assessed using the test results with the bus loaded to seated 
load weight as was proposed in the NPRM.
Reliability
    One comment to the Reliability test category and proposed 
performance standard recommended that flat tire incidents not be 
counted as a test failure, as flat tires are commonly caused by road 
debris and not by bus design.
    FTA does not agree with the commenter's suggestion to ignore the 
occurrence of flat tires during the test and not count them against the 
Reliability performance standard. Flat tires that are the result of a 
physical interference or structural problem will need to be addressed 
and resolved prior to test completion, but flat tires due to the 
presence of debris on the test track will not be documented in the test 
report.
Noise
    Two comments to the Noise test category and proposed performance 
standards were offered. The first requested clarification as to how the 
performance applied to electric bus charging systems. The second 
suggested that the noise levels, while traversing a fixed object, such 
as a speed bump, be measured during the noise test.
    FTA will accommodate the request to measure noise levels while the 
bus traverses road irregularities, as the current audible vibration 
test is conducted over the road while travelling from the test track to 
the main maintenance shop area in Altoona. In addition to the over the 
road segment this general interior noise test will be conducted on the 
test track. However, there is no minimum performance standard or 
scoring associated with this test, and noise testing of an electric bus 
will not be conducted while it is being charged, as it is not directly 
related to the vehicle's durability or performance.
Performance
    Two similar comments on the Performance test category and 
performance standard suggested that FTA conduct the tests in this test 
category at a fully-weighted or gross passenger load.
    With regard to the suggestion to conduct acceleration and 
gradeability tests at the maximum gross passenger load, current tests 
are conducted at a seated passenger load and there is no technical 
basis to conduct additional test runs. However, expected performance 
standards for acceleration and gradeability can be extrapolated

[[Page 50375]]

using the results from the seated passenger load test runs.
    For the check-in procedures outlined in section 665.27(b), FTA has 
revised the language to provide FTA five business days to review the 
results from the procedure outlined in 665.27(a) and provide a decision 
to either start the test or to request clarification about the results 
of that review. To prevent administrative test delays, the Bus Testing 
Facility operator has the authority to commence specific tests where 
FTA does not provide a response within five business days and the 
performance of those tests is not dependent on FTA's determination.

Appendix A to Part 665--Bus Model Scoring System and the Pass/Fail 
Standard

    FTA proposed adding tables as Appendix A to graphically illustrate 
the new Bus Model Scoring System and the Pass/Fail Standard.

Comments Received

    Four commenters expressed a concern that the aggregate score will 
encourage grantees to use the score blindly and not read the actual 
content of the test reports. They also expressed a concern that a 
procurement protest could be filed if they selected a bus model that 
did not have the highest score of those submitted for bid. In addition, 
one commenter wanted to know if they would be allowed to apply a 
different weighting to the scoring system than the weights assigned by 
FTA.
    FTA also received several comments regarding the fuel economy test 
and the fuel economy scoring system. Two commenters were concerned that 
the new dynamometer based fuel economy test method will not 
differentiate the efficiency differences between heating, ventilation, 
and air conditioning (HVAC) systems installed on the test buses and 
that the new test methodology does not fully reveal the potential of 
the new hybrid bus technologies. Two commenters strongly recommended 
that FTA employ a universal fuel economy scoring system for use with 
all fuel types, to illustrate the higher fuel economy of electric and 
hybrid-electric vehicles. Another commenter recommended that the fuel 
economy scores for 60-foot bus models be adjusted higher by 150 percent 
to reflect the additional weight of the vehicle.
    Agency Response: In regards to the concerns about the use of the 
scoring system as a primary determinant in procurement decisions, FTA 
will insert a disclaimer in test reports explaining that the using the 
test scores as the determinative factor in a competitive procurement is 
not required. Grantees may use their own specified selection criteria, 
so long as the selected bus model received a passing test score. 
Grantees are allowed to establish evaluation criteria more stringent 
than those used in FTA's testing program or to use an alternative 
weighting for the scoring of the test results, provided that those 
criteria do not violate FTA's requirement for full and open competition 
(See 49 U.S.C. 5323(a)).
    Based on comments that the Shakedown test is redundant in light of 
the broader Structural Durability test, FTA is eliminating the 
Shakedown test and moving the base points (1.0) associated with the 
test into the Structural Durability test category, increasing the value 
of the later test from 12.0 to 13.0 points. Regarding the comments 
requesting modification of the Fuel Economy test procedure to reflect 
the effect of HVAC operation on fuel consumption, neither the existing 
test track test procedure nor the dynamometer procedures are capable to 
testing the effects of various HVAC systems on the measured fuel 
economy. While the testing is conducted with the ventilation fan 
engaged, the air conditioning and the heating system controls are set 
to the equivalent of an ``off'' state. Although evaluating the effect 
of HVAC systems on fuel economy is technically possible, it would 
require that the dynamometer facility be capable of maintaining extreme 
temperatures to accurately stress the HVAC systems and the overall 
thermal performance of the bus body. Performing this type of testing 
would require a significant capital investment in the test facility and 
also would require a significant increase in testing fees.
    Both the test track and dynamometer-based fuel economy tests do not 
expressly inhibit engine-off hybrid buses from turning their engines 
off during the test procedure. Two of the three dynamometer-based test 
cycles are actual transit duty cycles. Because buses are designed to 
operate in an efficient manner, a bus should end with the battery state 
of charge (SOC) at the same level or higher than at the start of the 
test cycle. This may require the vehicle to idle for an additional time 
period to restore the battery's SOC.
    Several commenters on the proposed fuel economy scoring scale 
recommended using a single scoring for all fuel types instead of the 
individual fuel-specific scales proposed in the NPRM. A scale such as 
Miles per Gallon diesel equivalent (MPGde), conceptually based on the 
current Miles Per Gallon equivalent (MPGe) scale developed by the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for light duty vehicles \1\ and 
adjusted to the diesel fuel energy equivalent, was considered. The MPGe 
scale expresses the fuel economy of all other vehicle fuel types in 
terms of the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline. This 
methodology examines the efficiency of each vehicle's energy to power 
conversion from the fuel tank to the wheels but does not account for 
the efficiency of producing and delivering the fuel to the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/carlabel/electriclabelreadmore.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FTA strongly believes that given the wide range of fuel types 
available in the transit bus marketplace, the best and most commonly 
cited scoring metric for fuel economy is fuel cost per operating mile. 
However, due to the volatility of fuel prices, regional fuel price 
variances, and the variance in the availability of various fuels, 
establishing a standardized baseline for fuel economy test results 
based on fuel cost per operating mile is inherently problematic for 
inclusion in the rule.
    FTA examined the use of MPGde for the scoring of the fuel economy 
test results but declines to adopt such an approach for several 
reasons. First, MPGde does not factor the energy cost efficiency of 
each fuel type into the calculation. High values of MPGde do not always 
indicate low overall fuel operating costs which is a top bus 
performance priority for most agencies. For example, hydrogen fuel cell 
buses would be expected to have an MPGde rating more than twice as high 
as a diesel bus but the fuel currently costs more than three times that 
of diesel fuel on a gallon equivalent basis resulting in higher overall 
fuel operating costs. Similarly, CNG buses would be expected to have an 
MPGde rating about 20% lower than that of a diesel bus but the fuel 
itself costs less than half that of diesel making it a popular choice 
in many locales even when the capital and operating costs of the 
fueling stations are considered.
    Second, MPGde does not account for the significant fueling 
infrastructure costs of most alternative fuels introduced into transit 
fleets, nor does MPGde account for the significant differences in 
maintenance facilities, maintenance practices and tools, and maintainer 
skill sets required for each fuel type. While the choice between 
gasoline and diesel is not an issue for private owners of passenger 
vehicles, who can take the vehicle to any number of car dealers or 
maintenance garages, switching or adding a new bus fuel type

[[Page 50376]]

can be a significant undertaking for most agencies with respect to bus 
maintenance. Although MPGde could be considered relevant to an 
overarching Federal interest in minimizing transportation energy 
consumption, FTA believes that MPGde is not used by transit agencies as 
it is not a clear indicator of fuel operating costs.
    Third, MPGde only assesses the fuel efficiency of the vehicle from 
the vehicle's fuel tank to the wheels and not the true ``well-to-
wheels'' efficiency of the complete fuel chain. This methodology 
generates an artificially high MPGde value for electric vehicles as 
most of the costs of generating and delivering electric ``fuel'' take 
place off-board the vehicle at the electric powerplant and along the 
power transmission lines. For instance, a bus can consume compressed 
natural gas (CNG) and achieve one MPGde value, versus burning CNG to 
fuel an electric powerplant and delivering the electricity over wires 
to charge an electric bus, with a resultant MPGde rating approximately 
five to six times greater than that of the CNG bus due primarily to the 
efficiency accounting methodology and not the actual well-to-wheels 
fuel efficiency. Therefore, FTA believes that adopting MPGde is not a 
suitable scoring mechanism to indicate the Federal priorities for 
energy sustainability to the transit industry.
    Lastly, if FTA scored the fuel economy results using MPGde, the 
resulting inflated electric vehicle MPGde values will require expanding 
the range of the scoring scale significantly. Due to the current scale 
having a fixed number of points, the resolution of the scale will be 
reduced, making all bus models of the same size class and fuel type 
look identical with respect to the score. This defeats the primary 
purpose of the program which is to provide agencies objective 
information for the selection of bus models during the bus procurement 
process.
    By maintaining the separate proposed fuel economy scoring scales, 
the well-to-wheels efficiency differences of different fuel types are 
neutralized as each fuel type has its own scale. This approach 
highlights the efficiency differences between bus models of the same 
fuel type which is very useful for transit agencies while still 
supporting the Federal interest in reducing transportation fuel 
consumption.

D. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures

    This rulemaking is a significant regulatory action within the 
meaning of Executive Orders 13563 and 12866, and FTA has determined 
that it is also significant under DOT regulatory policies and 
procedures because of substantial State, local government, 
congressional, and public interest. However, this rule is not 
``economically significant,'' as defined in Executive Order 12866.
    This section explains the purpose of the bus testing program, why 
FTA is establishing a pass/fail requirement with a point-based system 
and how that fits within FTA's mission, the alternative scoring systems 
FTA considered, the logic that FTA employed in determining the weights 
assigned to the different test categories, FTA's rationale for 
prioritizing use of the manufacturer's portion of the testing fee, and 
FTA's analysis of the costs and benefits.

Alternative Scoring Systems Considered

    While reviewing and developing scoring systems to meet the MAP-21 
requirements, FTA considered a number of alternatives. To begin, FTA 
considered the importance of the entirety of the safety tests within 
the existing Bus Testing Program. Noting how integral to the bus 
testing program each of the testing categories were, FTA wanted to 
ensure that the buses that were tested, at the very least, met all of 
the minimum performance standards, regardless of the scoring system 
that FTA adopted. Stated differently, FTA resolved that the scoring 
system would have to preclude a bus model from passing the test solely 
by attaining additional points in other categories (while failing in 
one or more key categories), resulting in points greater than the 
threshold that FTA set for the pass/fail standard. FTA also wanted to 
ensure that whatever system FTA adopted would be relatively simple, 
straightforward, and easy to understand, and provide meaningful 
information to both transit agencies and manufacturers. Using these 
principles, FTA assessed various systems that FTA could adopt or 
implement to meet the requirements of MAP-21.
    FTA first considered various qualitative systems. FTA reviewed a 
``five-tier'' based system, as used by other organizations. FTA liked 
the simplicity of the five-star system for grading buses that met the 
minimum requirement of passing all of the tests. While FTA's review of 
various systems indicated that such qualitative systems are simple to 
implement, they can be very subjective. Moreover, the five-tier system 
did not capture the level of detail and differential information that 
FTA desired to convey to the transit industry and manufacturers. FTA 
also reviewed and considered an ``A to D'' based grading system. Again, 
while this would have resulted in a fairly simple and straightforward 
system, it did not convey the level of information or the level of 
detail to inform transit agencies who are purchasing the vehicles. 
Thus, FTA rejected these two qualitative systems. While they were 
simple, straightforward, and easy to understand, they did not meet 
FTA's goal of providing meaningful information to transit agencies and 
manufacturers.
    Next, FTA considered quantitative point-based systems with the 
minimum threshold requirement of passing all of the tests. FTA 
considered various scales. FTA rejected a 50-point based scale for lack 
of simplicity. FTA considered an 80-point scale (10 points for each 
test category) and rejected it because it did not capture the relative 
importance or weighting of the categories. FTA also considered various 
levels for the pass/fail threshold for each of the scales. Finally, FTA 
settled on a 100-point scale due to its universality. FTA initially 
considered a minimum passing score of 40 points, believing the 60 
discretionary points would provide purchasers with a greater range with 
which to evaluate different vehicles, but given the grading systems 
used in academia and other applications, FTA established a minimum 
passing threshold of 60 points with 40 discretionary points. This 
quantitative scale with the minimum threshold of passing all of the 
tests met all of FTA's goals that the scoring system is relatively 
simple, straightforward, and easy to understand, and will provide 
meaningful information to transit agencies and manufacturers.

Logic Used To Determine Weighting for Tests and Sub-Tests

    After deciding to propose a 100-point scale for the Bus testing 
program, FTA had to weigh the importance of each of the test categories 
within the Bus testing program. FTA determined that the Structural 
Integrity and Safety Tests were the most important components of the 
bus testing program, as both were critical to the operation of the 
vehicle while on the road. Therefore, FTA allotted 50 of the total 100 
points to these two tests. Between the two tests, FTA determined that 
while both were

[[Page 50377]]

important, the Structural Integrity Test was more important than the 
Safety Test, based on its greater importance in evaluating a vehicle's 
construction, design, and ability to meet service life requirements. 
Hence, FTA assigned 60 percent of the points for these tests to the 
Structural Integrity Test and the remaining 40 percent to the Safety 
Test.
    Within the Structural Integrity Test are six sub-test categories, 
of which five are pass/fail tests. Thus, FTA allotted one point each 
for the Distortion, Static Towing, Dynamic Towing, Hydraulic Jacking, 
and Hoisting Tests. The Durability Test, as the most important 
component of the Structural Integrity Test, received the remaining 25 
points. Within these Durability Tests, FTA allocated 13 points to 
structural durability and 12 points to powertrain durability due to 
importance to meeting service life requirements.
    For the Safety sub-tests, FTA determined that the Hazards Test was 
as important as the other two sub-tests within this category and 
allotted it one-half of the total 20 points. The Stability and Braking 
Tests have three component tests that require a pass/fail grading and 
one that is a performance based allocation. FTA valued each of these 
tests equally, based on their relative importance when evaluating a 
vehicle. Hence, FTA apportioned 25 percent of the remaining points to 
each test.
    For the Maintainability and Reliability Tests, FTA assessed the 
Maintainability Test to be twice as important as the Reliability Test, 
but both tests to be as important as the remaining tests, as both 
directly affect a transit agency's operating costs. Maintainability 
reflects how much time and resources the transit agency should expect 
to budget over the course of a vehicle's service life to perform 
routine maintenance, and reliability reflects a vehicle's ability to 
meet its service life requirements without significant service 
disruptions caused by unscheduled maintenance. For ease of assigning 
points within the weightings, FTA allocated 24 points (or just less 
than one-half of the 50 points for the remaining tests) to these two 
tests. Hence, within FTA's weighting scheme, the Maintainability Test 
received 16 percent of the total points and the Reliability Test 
received eight percent of the total points.
    Assessing the remaining four tests, Fuel Economy, Emissions, Noise, 
and Performance Tests, FTA determined that each was about the same 
level of importance based on comments from transit agencies, but that 
two, Fuel Economy and Emissions Tests, were slightly more important in 
terms of helping a transit agency to budget for a vehicle's fuel 
consumption over its lifetime and in calculating the vehicle's 
incremental benefit towards meeting Clean Air Act requirements. 
Therefore, as opposed to assigning equal weighting to each of the 
remaining tests, FTA allocated slightly more weight to the Fuel Economy 
and Emissions Tests than the Noise and Performance Tests. This resulted 
in a point allocation of seven points or 27 percent of the remaining 
points for to the Fuel Economy and Emissions Tests and an average of 
six points or 23 percent of the remaining points for the Noise and 
Performance Tests.
    The Fuel Economy Test allocates points on a performance basis 
determined by the output of the type of fuel. For the Emissions Tests, 
FTA apportioned one-half point for each of the five Emissions Tests 
that are already regulated by other Federal agencies and the remaining 
points for the Carbon Dioxide Test. This weighting for carbon dioxide 
captures the importance of alternative fuels with respect to greenhouse 
gases.
    The Noise Test allocates points on a performance basis determined 
by the level of decibels produced. FTA weighted the Interior Noise and 
Exterior Noise Test equally (3.5 points each). As for the Performance 
Test, FTA weighted the bus model performance on a 2.5 percent grade and 
the performance during the acceleration test as being equally important 
and together being worth 60 percent of the five points available. The 
performance on a 10 percent grade was valued at 40 percent of the 
Performance test category.

Testing Fee Prioritization

    In order to preclude buses that are not ready to complete the bus 
testing program, the NPRM proposed to exhaust the manufacturer's 20 
percent contribution for the total testing fee prior to employing funds 
from FTA's 80 percent contribution. This prioritizing of the 
manufacturers' portion of the test fee will incentivize transit vehicle 
manufacturers to ensure that the bus model submitted will, at a 
minimum, clear the initial check-in inspections, passenger loading, and 
initial testing operations. FTA estimates that, depending on the bus 
model, the first 20 percent of the testing fee should encompass the 
check-in process and threshold tests.
    Based on previous testing experience, FTA determined that bus 
models that fail these preliminary activities will not perform well 
during subsequent tests. This policy minimizes the cost to FTA from bus 
models submitted before they are ready for testing, thereby conserving 
Federal resources and ensuring that the proper incentive structures are 
in place. This will encourage manufacturers to ensure their product can 
withstand the rigors of bus testing. FTA would continue to pay the 80 
percent Federal match for one retest and would contribute no Federal 
funds for a third test or subsequent tests required to achieve a 
passing test score.

Cost-Benefit Analysis

    This section contains FTA's analysis of the benefits and costs of 
the rule. FTA estimated the rule's benefits and costs through two 
steps: First, FTA identified and analyzed the costs of the existing Bus 
testing program (baseline). Second, FTA identified and analyzed the 
expected costs of the rule relative to the baseline. To determine the 
benefits and costs of the rule, FTA reviewed the test data for all bus 
models that had been tested at the Bus Testing Facility between January 
2010, when the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) current Diesel 
Engine Emission Standards took effect (40 CFR part 86, as amended, 66 
FR 5002, January 18, 2001), and February 2013, when this rulemaking 
commenced. The resulting diesel engine exhaust after-treatment systems 
used to satisfy the 2010 requirements potentially impacted the 
reliability, maintainability, fuel economy, emissions, and noise test 
results for a portion of the 49 buses. Additionally, there were OEM 
product updates to many of the medium-duty chassis used by the five, 
seven, and ten year service life buses that would affect test results 
in several test categories.
    A total of 49 buses had been tested over this period. FTA believes 
that the test results for these 49 bus models tested since 2010 provide 
the best available source of information for determining the cost of 
the rule on future buses that would be tested (and the models they 
represent). All bus types and sizes are included in the group of 49, 
from accessible vans to 60-foot articulated bus models. Buses fueled by 
compressed natural gas (CNG), electricity, diesel, gasoline, and 
liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) are included within this group. To 
determine qualitative benefits, FTA also examined the test results and 
the transit experience with two bus models tested (prior to 2010) that 
failed to meet their service life requirements in transit service. FTA 
has placed the test results of the buses that it analyzed in the docket 
for this rulemaking.

[[Page 50378]]

Costs
    A summary of the results of FTA's cost analysis is presented in 
Table H-1. Eight categories of costs were identified, analyzed, and 
annualized:
    1. Cost of Required Bus Design Changes: This category is the 
estimated annual cost of applying the design changes and components 
necessary to comply with all of the proposed performance standards to 
all affected bus models produced in one year.
    2. Lost Value of Test Buses: This category estimates the 
depreciation cost of a bus subjected to the testing process. For each 
of the 49 buses models tested from 2010 through 2012, the full retail 
value was estimated by identifying a recent purchase value from the 
2013 APTA Fleet Report and applying a depreciation factor of 50% to bus 
models that underwent a durability test and a factor of 20% for bus 
models that only underwent performance and other non-durability related 
tests.
    3. Shipping of Test Buses: This category estimates the cost of 
shipping the test buses to the Bus Testing and Research Center and back 
to the manufacturer. The actual/estimated distance that each of the 49 
bus models traveled was determined and was used for FTA's calculations. 
Table H-0 presents this data. For 10-, 7-, 5-, and 4-year buses, a cost 
of $2.00 per mile was used to estimate the shipping cost. This cost is 
based on a recent shipment of a mid-sized bus on a truck. For heavy-
duty 12-year diesel fueled buses, a cost of $1.61 per mile was used to 
cover the costs of driving the bus to the test center and back. The 
estimated fuel costs were calculated using the bus model's measured 
highway fuel economy and a fuel price of $3.00 per gallon was added. 
For heavy-duty buses powered by natural gas or electricity, a shipping 
cost of $4.00 per mile was applied. This cost represents the cost to 
ship these bus models on a truck.

                              Table H-0--Distance Traveled To and From Test Center
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Actual/Estimated
                                                                                 shipping      Shipped via truck
                        Report No.                           Service life     distance to and   to and from test
                                                                             from test center        center
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1001.....................................................                 7               490
1002.....................................................                 7               490
1003.....................................................                12               549
1004.....................................................                 7               490
1005.....................................................                 7              1014
1006.....................................................                10               490
1007.....................................................                12               310
1008.....................................................                 7               490
1009.....................................................                 7               490
1010.....................................................                10               975
1011.....................................................                12               780
1012.....................................................                 7               490
1014.....................................................                 7               490
1015.....................................................                12              1400
1016.....................................................                12              1400                 X
1017.....................................................                 4               490
1101.....................................................                12              1400
1102.....................................................                 7               490
1103.....................................................                 7              1112
1104.....................................................                10               490
1105.....................................................                 7              1112
1106.....................................................                 7               490
1107.....................................................                12               574                 X
1108.....................................................                12               482
1109.....................................................                12              2676                 X
1110.....................................................                10               490
1111.....................................................                 7               490
1112.....................................................                 7               490
1113.....................................................                 7               430
1114.....................................................                 7               490
1115.....................................................                 4              1112
1116.....................................................                 7              1112
1117.....................................................                12               310
1118.....................................................                12              1400                 X
1120.....................................................                 7               490
1201.....................................................                 7               490
1202.....................................................                12               310
1203.....................................................                 7               430
1204.....................................................                 7              1112
1205.....................................................                12              1400
1206.....................................................                12              2676                 X
1207.....................................................                 7              1112
1208.....................................................                 7               430
1210.....................................................                 7              1112
1211.....................................................                12              1400
1212.....................................................                 7               955
1213.....................................................                12               482
1214.....................................................                 7              1112                 X
1215.....................................................                 4               490
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 50379]]

    4. Parts Consumed: This cost category is for the cost of parts 
consumed during the test.
    5. On-Site Personnel: This cost category is for the cost of 
maintaining manufacturer personnel on-site at the test center. For each 
test of a heavy-duty bus, the cost of a mechanic's labor ($20.35 an 
hour), lodging, and per diem at State College, PA for three full 
months. Manufacturer personnel are often on-site during the testing of 
heavy-duty bus models.
    6. Paperwork Burden: This cost category covers the costs to 
manufacturers of providing mandatory information to the bus testing 
program.
    7. Manufacturer Testing Fees: This cost category covers the 20 
percent testing fees that the manufacturers pay to have testing 
conducted.
    8. FTA Program Cost: This cost category covers the funding provided 
by FTA to cover 80 percent of the costs associated with testing a bus 
model.
    FTA estimates the costs of the existing bus testing program are as 
follows: The maximum total annual program cost is $3,750,000 with 80 
percent ($3,000,000) covered by FTA and 20 percent ($750,000) paid by 
transit vehicle manufacturers who submit a bus for testing. The current 
Paperwork Reduction Act reportable costs are $9,016. The estimated 
annual cost of on-site manufacturer personnel is estimated to be 
$76,673. The value of the parts consumed in the testing process is 
unknown. The annual estimated bus shipping costs for the current 
program is $63,743. The estimated annual test bus depreciation cost is 
$1,591,714. The annual cost of bus design improvements as a result of 
the current program is assumed zero as there are no minimum performance 
standards requirements. The estimated annual cost of the current bus 
testing program is $5,491,146.

                                                       Table H-1--Summary of Cost Analysis Results
                                                                    [All values in $]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Cost of req'd     Lost value    Shipping                       Manufacturer                                 FTA
                                       bus design       of test      of test     Parts  consumed       on-site      Paperwork     Testing      Program
                                        changes          buses        buses                           personnel       burden        fees         cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline-current program.........  0................    1,591,714       63,743  unknown..........          76,673        9,016      750,000    3,000,000
Proposed MAP-21 Minimum Proposed   unknown..........            0        2,209  unknown..........           5,103          767       33,362      133,448
 Performance Standards and
 Scoring System.
Proposed Discretionary Program     58,308...........            0            0  0................               0        2,810      -15,328      -61,310
 Changes.
Revised Bus Payloading Procedures  58,308...........            0            0  0................               0        1,488          -74         -294
Elimination of On-Road Fuel        0................            0            0  0................               0            0      -16,000      -64,000
 Economy Test.
Revised Bus Passenger Load for     0................            0            0  0................               0            0         -118         -470
 Emissions Testing.
Bus Testing Entrance Requirements  0................            0            0  0................               0            0          664        2,654
Revisions to the Test Scheduling   0................            0            0  0................               0        1,322            0            0
 Requirements.
Test Requirements Review           0................            0            0  0................               0            0            0            0
 Milestone.
Penalty for Unauthorized           0................            0            0  0................               0            0          200          800
 Maintenance & Modification.
Estimated Program Costs (Baseline  58,308...........    1,591,714       65,952  unknown..........          81,776       12,593      768,034    3,072,138
 & New Proposals).
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total........................  .................  ...........  ...........  .................  ..............  ...........  ...........    5,650,515
    Baseline Total...............  .................  ...........  ...........  .................  ..............  ...........  ...........    5,491,146
    Incremental Program Cost.....  .................  ...........  ...........  .................  ..............  ...........  ...........      159,369
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate the costs of the rule, FTA first identified all of the 
bus models in the study group of 49 that would fail to meet the 
standards.
    The most significant cost caused by this rule will be the cost of 
retesting to validate a vehicle that has failed one or more tests. 
Eight of the 49 buses FTA examined failed one or more tests. The below 
table identifies each test these buses would have failed, thus 
triggering the retesting requirement. FTA also estimated the costs for 
retesting, and in two cases, the cost of a potential remedy.

                                             Table H-2--Summary of the Costs for Retesting Failed Bus Models
                      [Cost of remedying and retesting bus models (2010-2013) that would fail a proposed performance standard ($)]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Shipping of
                                                                       test bus back
                                                                             to
                        Failed test     Cost of required   Lost value   manufacturer    Additional      On-site     Paperwork     Testing        FTA
 Bus  (report No.)        category         bus design       of test         for            parts       personnel      burden    fees  (20%)    program
                                             changes         buses     modifications     consumed                                                cost
                                                                       and return to
                                                                           Altoona
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTI-BY-1214........  Structural         Unknown--upper              0             0   Unknown.......        4,374          215       11,152       44,608
                      durability.        body structure
                                         failing.
PTI-BT-1208........  Structural         Unknown--body               0             0   Unknown.......        4,374          215       11,152       44,608
                      durability.        structure
                                         cracks.
PTI-BT-1110........  Structural         Unknown--body to            0             0   Unknown.......        4,374          215       17,054       68,216
                      durability.        frame interface
                                         is cracking.
                                         Potentially
                                         need a new bus
                                         body mount
                                         design.

[[Page 50380]]

 
PTI-BT-1108........  Powertrain         Unknown--multipl            0         2,034   Unknown.......  ...........          710       23,578       94,312
                      durability.        e different
                                         powertrain
                                         failure modes
                                         need to be
                                         remedied.
                     Maintainability..  If powertrain               0             0   Unknown.......  ...........            0            0            0
                                         durability
                                         failures are
                                         corrected this
                                         standard would
                                         be met as well.
PTI-BT-1108........  Performance......  Unknown--the                0             0   Unknown.......  ...........            0          600        2,400
                                         maximum
                                         propulsion
                                         power delivered
                                         to the wheels
                                         needs to be
                                         increased.
PTI-BT-1009........  Powertrain         Unknown--multipl            0             0   Unknown.......        2,187          215       11,152       44,608
                      durability.        e different
                                         powertrain
                                         failure modes
                                         need to be
                                         remedied.
PTI-BT-1107........  Structural         $130--radius rod            0             0   ..............  ...........           42            0            0
                      durability.        mount was re-
                                         welded to
                                         correct
                                         manufacturing
                                         defect.
                     Powertrain         Unknown--multipl            0         4,592   Unknown.......  ...........          380       23,578       94,312
                      durability.        e different
                                         powertrain
                                         failure modes
                                         need to be
                                         remedied.
                                         Transmission
                                         cradle was the
                                         primary issue.
PTI-BT-1107........  Performance......  Unknown--the                0  .............  Unknown.......  ...........           42          600        2,400
                                         maximum
                                         propulsion
                                         power delivered
                                         to the wheels
                                         needs to be
                                         increased.
                     Safety-braking...  Additional test             0             0   0.............            0            0          620        2,480
                                         trials needed
                                         to achieve
                                         greater brake
                                         lining contact
                                         with brake
                                         rotors.
                     Maintainability..  0--if the                   0             0   Unknown.......  ...........            0            0            0
                                         powertrain
                                         durability
                                         failures are
                                         corrected this
                                         standard would
                                         be met as well.
PTI-BT-1006........  Interior Noise...  $211--this                  0             0   0.............            0          133          300         1200
                                         trolley bus
                                         exceeded the
                                         proposed
                                         interior noise
                                         standard by 4
                                         dB at the
                                         driver's
                                         seating
                                         position.
                                         Commercially
                                         available sound
                                         dampening
                                         material
                                         applied to the
                                         floor and
                                         engine cover
                                         area would
                                         reduce the
                                         average noise
                                         level by 5 dBs
                                         20 square feet
                                         of this
                                         material costs
                                         $170.00 retail
                                         and a two hours
                                         of mechanic
                                         labor (2 -
                                         20.35 = 40.70)
                                         to install.

[[Page 50381]]

 
PTI-BT-1010........  Interior Noise...  $211--this                  0             0   0.............            0          133          300         1200
                                         trolley bus
                                         exceeded the
                                         proposed
                                         interior noise
                                         standard by 4
                                         dB at the
                                         driver's
                                         seating
                                         position.
                                         Commercially
                                         available sound
                                         dampening
                                         material
                                         applied to the
                                         floor and
                                         engine cover
                                         area would
                                         reduce the
                                         average noise
                                         level by 5 dBs
                                         20 square feet
                                         of this
                                         material costs
                                         $170.00 retail
                                         and a two hours
                                         of mechanic
                                         labor (2 -
                                         20.35 = 40.70)
                                         to install.
                                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Total Cost ($)     Unknown.........            0         6,626   0.............       15,309        2,300      100,086      400,344
                     Annual Cost ($)    Unknown.........            0         2,209   0.............        5,103          767       33,362      133,448
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the testing fees for the program are broken down by 
test and sub-test categories, with manufacturers charged fees only for 
the tests that must be conducted. The fee schedule for the current 
program is shown in Table H-3.

                             Table H-3--Adjusted Bus Testing Program Costs and Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   500,000 mi--   350,000 mi--10   200,000 mi --   150,000 mi --   100,000 mi --
              Test                    12 year      year service   7 year service  5 year service  4 year service
                                   service life        life            life            life            life
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check-In........................           3,000           3,000           3,000           3,000           3,000
Inspect for Accessibility.......           1,500           1,500           1,500           1,500           1,500
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintainability (scheduled and
 unscheduled)...................                       Included in the durability test cost
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selected Maintainability........           4,500           4,500           4,500           4,500           4,500
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reliability.....................                       Included in the durability test cost
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety..........................           3,000           3,000           3,000           3,000           3,000
Performance.....................           6,000           6,000           6,000           6,000           6,000
Brake...........................           6,100           6,100           6,100           6,100           6,100
Distortion......................           3,000           3,000           3,000           3,000           3,000
Static Towing...................           1,500           1,500           1,500           1,500           1,500
Dynamic Towing..................           1,500           1,500           1,500           1,500           1,500
Jacking.........................           1,500           1,500           1,500           1,500           1,500
Hoisting........................           1,500           1,500           1,500           1,500           1,500
Structural Durability...........         117,890          85,270          55,760          40,060          25,970
Fuel Economy....................           6,000           6,000           6,000           6,000           6,000
Interior Noise..................           1,500           1,500           1,500           1,500           1,500
Exterior Noise..................           1,500           1,500           1,500           1,500           1,500
Emissions.......................          44,000          44,000          44,000          44,000          44,000
Total for Full Testing (100%)...         203,990         171,370         141,860          77,660          60,570
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer's Portion Fee (20%)          40,798          34,274          28,372          15,532          12,114
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results from this analysis indicate that annual costs would 
increase in several areas. The impact of the performance standards to 
the FTA program cost is estimated to be $133,448. A total of $33,362 in 
additional manufacturer's fees would be collected from the additional 
tests. An additional paperwork burden of $767

[[Page 50382]]

would be incurred from the required failure analysis and remedy 
proposal process. An additional $5,103 would be expended for on-site 
personnel expenses incurred performing test bus modifications at the 
test site. An unknown amount of additional parts and components would 
be consumed during the retesting. FTA estimates that one of the eight 
failed buses would be returned to the manufacturer for systemic 
modifications incurring additional round-trip shipping expenses of 
$2,034. FTA believes that the retesting process will not depreciate the 
test bus an additional amount beyond the first test. However, FTA 
believes there are no additional costs to the program from implementing 
the Bus Model Scoring System, as the scores will be calculated 
automatically once the test results are finalized.
    FTA also analyzed the costs of the discretionary program changes in 
the final rule. The rule will modify two test procedures (payloading 
and emissions test payload) but will not impose any completely new 
testing procedures, and will eliminate the On-Road Fuel Economy Test 
procedure, thereby reducing the aggregate costs currently associated 
with the bus testing program. For the revised bus payloading 
procedures, FTA estimates an annual decrease in the program cost of 
$294 and a decrease in testing fees of $74. These are a result of labor 
cost savings from loading the mid-sized buses with fewer or no 
simulated standee passengers. FTA estimates an increase in the annual 
paperwork burden of $1,488 from the increased manufacturer labor 
required to determine and report to FTA the total passenger capacity of 
new bus models submitted to the program. The only other cost introduced 
by the revised bus payloading procedures is the requirement to add a 
placard on the interior bulkhead of the bus identifying the maximum 
standee passenger rating in 2 inch or taller letters. FTA estimates the 
annual cost impact to new bus models is $58,038. This cost analysis is 
presented in Table H-3.

                                                 Table H-4--Cost of Standee Passenger Rating Placard ($)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           Labor amount
                  Standee Rating Placard                      Estimated cost per decal      Labor rate      to install    Estimated cost   Total annual
                                                              (using a quantity of 500)        (hr)            (hr)           per bus          cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual cost for new production transit buses (5600 units a                          8.99           13.74            0.10           10.36          58,038
 year)....................................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Source: www.edecals.com using a 2.5 inch tall lettering stating ``XX Standees Maximum'').
Labor rate assumes a category of ``assembler and fabricator'' from bls.gov.

    The annual cost savings of eliminating the on-road fuel economy 
test is $64,000 for the FTA program and $16,000 in manufacturer test 
fees. FTA estimates that 15 on-road fuel economy tests would be 
eliminated annually and the cost of the dynamometer based fuel economy 
test is already captured in the cost for the emissions test. One full 
electric bus is expected to be tested annually. Although electric bus 
models do not need to undergo emissions testing, the cost for 
conducting one electric bus fuel economy test was retained.
    FTA is also changing the bus passenger load for the emissions test 
from 2/3 seated load weight to full seated load weight. FTA estimates a 
cost reduction of $470 for the FTA program portion and $118 in reduced 
fees to the manufacturers. The cost savings is derived from eliminating 
the labor of unloading and reloading 1/3 of the seated passenger load 
as all of the other non-durability performance tests are conducted at 
full seated load.
    The program entrance requirements are expected to increase the 
annual FTA program costs by $2,654 and require $664 in additional 
manufacturer costs. The additional costs are a result of the bus 
configuration inspections conducted at bus check-in. The details of 
this cost analysis are outlined in Table H-5.

                                  Table H-5--Bus Configuration Inspection Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Labor category              Hourly rate       Source           Total hours per bus           Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diesel auto service tech..........           20.35         bls.gov                             4           81.40
Technical writer..................           31.49         bls.gov                             4          125.96
                                                                                    Cost per bus          207.36
                                                                    Total annual cost (16 buses)          $3,318
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The revisions to the test scheduling process are expected to 
increase the annual paperwork burden to bus manufacturers by $1,322. 
The test entrance requirements review milestone is not expected to add 
any costs to the program as only FTA will be reviewing the results of 
the check-in process and determining the outcome of the milestone 
review.
    Lastly, the annual cost of the penalty for unauthorized maintenance 
and modification is estimated to be $800 for the FTA program cost 
portion and $200 in fees to the manufacturers. The costs
were determined by amortizing the cost of test track upgrades for 
physical security and surveillance over a 10-year period.
    The total annual cost of the Bus Test Program is estimated to be 
$5,650,515 given the changes made under this rule. The current Bus Test 
Program incurs annual costs of $5,494,146. The incremental cost of the 
rule is anticipated to be $159,369 per year for the new bus models.
Benefits
    A summary of the estimated annual benefits of the Bus testing 
program is presented in Table H-6. FTA has identified and analyzed 
seven categories of program benefits:
    1. Greater probability of meeting service life and reduced 
unscheduled maintenance: This category estimates the annual benefits 
achieved by adopting these procedures will improve the likelihood that 
new model bus models entering revenue service will satisfy their 
service life requirement and the benefits obtained through a reduction 
of unscheduled maintenance

[[Page 50383]]

in actual service. While FTA provides a potential estimate of this 
benefit, FTA does not include it in its quantitative analysis, but 
notes that this will most likely be a cost reduction (qualitative 
benefit) to the industry.
    2. Reduced safety risk: This category estimates the annual benefits 
that reduce the safety risk of new bus models entering transit service.
    3. Improved recipient awareness and accuracy of total bus passenger 
capacity: This category of benefits examines the benefits obtained from 
determining and communicating the rated standee passenger capacity of a 
bus to recipients to inform their procurement process and their bus 
operations.
    4. Improved recipient knowledge of a bus model production 
configuration: This category improves the knowledge of the tested bus 
model configuration and any deviations from the original planned 
configuration herein.
    5. Increased confidence the delivered production buses will perform 
the same as the test bus: This category examines the benefits of the 
proposals in increasing the understanding and confidence that the bus 
model a recipient procures and is delivered, and matches the bus tested 
with respect to its design configuration and major components.
    6. Faster comprehension of test results/scores and motivation for 
improved bus performance: This category examines the benefits derived 
from the proposals to increase the speed and depth of comprehension of 
the bus testing results.
    7. Simplified test scheduling process and elimination of 
unnecessary testing: This category examines the benefits of maintaining 
one point and process of program entry and the benefits of eliminating 
unnecessary testing.
    FTA was unable to provide monetized benefits for many of the 
benefit categories. For many of the categories where FTA believes there 
are benefits but was unable to quantify, the result is identified as 
``unknown''. For categories where FTA believes there is no benefit, the 
result was identified as ``0''. The benefits of a greater probability 
of bus models meeting their service life was quantified, but only to 
inform FTA's qualitative assumptions.
    Overall, FTA believes that the current program provides potential 
benefits in all of the seven categories identified when the information 
generated by the program is used in the procurement decision process. 
FTA did not receive comments to the docket challenging or questioning 
these benefits, but FTA believes that adopting these minimum 
performance standards will reduce safety risks, reduce unscheduled 
maintenance, and ensure a greater probability of a bus model meeting 
its expected service life.

                                                              Table H-6--Summary of the Estimated Annual Benefits for All Proposals
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Greater probability                                                    Improved grantee     Increased confidence  Faster comprehension     Simplified test
                                     of meeting service                          Grantee awareness and     Knowledge of Buy        the delivered       of test scores and      scheduling and
               Item                   life and reduced     Reduced safety risk   accuracy of total bus     America and bus     production buses will     motivation for           process &
                                        unscheduled                                passenger capacity     testing production    perform the same as       improved bus         elimination of
                                        maintenance                                                         configuration           the test bus           performance       unnecessary testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline--Current Program........  Unknown..............  Unknown..............  Unknown..............  Unknown..............  Unknown..............  Unknown.............  Unknown.
Proposed MAP--21 Minimum           Cost reduction.......  Unknown..............  0....................  0....................  0....................  0...................  0.
 Performance Standards.
Proposed Scoring System..........  Unknown..............  Unknown..............  0....................  0....................  0....................  Unknown.............  0.
Proposed Discretionary Program     .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................  .....................  ....................  ....................
 Changes.
Revised Bus Payloading Procedures  Unknown..............  Unknown..............  Unknown..............  0....................  0....................  0...................  0.
Elimination of On-Road Fuel        0....................  0....................  0....................  0....................  Unknown..............  0...................  Cost reduction.
 Economy Test.
Revised Bus Passenger Load for     0....................  0....................  0....................  0....................  0....................  0...................  Cost reduction.
 Emissions Testing.
Bus Testing Entrance Requirement.  0....................  Unknown..............  Unknown..............  Unknown..............  Unknown..............  0...................  Unknown.
Revisions to the Scheduling of     0....................  0....................  0....................  0....................  0....................  0...................  Unknown.
 Testing Requirements.
Test Requirements Review           0....................  0....................  0....................  0....................  0....................  0...................  Unknown.
 Milestone.
Penalty for Unauthorized           Unknown..............  Unknown..............  Unknown..............  Unknown..............  Unknown..............  Unknown.............  0.
 Maintenance and Modification.
Estimated Program Benefit          Cost Reduction.......  Unknown..............  Unknown..............  Unknown..............  Unknown..............  Unknown.............  Cost reduction.
 (Baseline and all Proposals).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                               Table H-7--Benefits Achieved From the Minimum Performance Standards
                                          [Projected benefit from the service life loss prevention resulting from the proposed durability requirements]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                  Estimated quantity
                                                                                              # of tested models   of buses sold in                        Estimated annual
                                                                                                  that failed       2013 that have                        service life value   Total cost of new
            Bus Size                 Service life     # of units sold in  # of models tested      durability          failed the        Average new bus    loss (assumes bus     transit buses
                                    category (yrs)         2013 \1\            2010-2012        (structural or         proposed          value \2\ ($)     retirement at 50%   procured in 2013
                                                                                                  powertrain)         durability                               life) ($)
                                                                                                                       standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 55 foot articulated...........  12................  172...............  2.................  0.................  0.................  760,766...........  0.................  130,851,752
45 foot.........................  12................  18................  2.................  0.................  0.................  449,712...........  0.................  8,094,816
40 foot.........................  12................  1906..............  10................  1.................  38................  439,954...........  8,385,523.........  838,552,324
35 foot.........................  12................  373...............  2.................  1.................  37................  286,972...........  5,352,028.........  107,040,556
30 foot.........................  10................  283...............  4.................  1.................  14................  207,528...........  1,468,261.........  58,730,424
< 27 foot.......................  4, 5, 7...........  2892..............  29................  3.................  60................  62,410............  1,867,135.........  180,489,720
                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..................  5644..............  49................  6.................  149...............  ..................  17,072,947........  1,323,759,592
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Table 9A, FY2013: http://www.fta.dot.gov/about_FTA_16073.html.
\2\ See APTA Public Transportation Vehicle Database. http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/OtherAPTAStatistics.aspx.


[[Page 50384]]

    FTA is not able to provide a monetized value for the safety risk 
reduction. Further, FTA estimated benefits of bus models meeting their 
service life requirements, but FTA used this to inform FTA's 
qualitative assumption that there would be aggregate benefits to the 
industry. FTA did not include this in FTA's quantitative calculations 
because FTA was uncertain of the potential aggregate savings on a year-
to-year basis into the future as the industry adapts to today's 
rulemaking. The results of this analysis are presented in Table H-7.
    The analysis presented in Table H-7 used the 2013 transit bus 
procurement data outlined in Table 9A in the FY 2013 FTA statistical 
summaries by bus size category and quantity. This analysis also 
estimated the average cost of a bus model in each size category using 
the cost information in Table 9A. FTA then determined the quantity of 
bus models tested in each of the size categories from 2010-2012 (49 
buses total) and the number of those that failed the proposed 
durability performance standard (6). FTA estimated the quantity of bus 
models sold in 2013 that would have been restricted from FTA recipients 
in each bus size category. This estimate assumes that 20 percent of the 
bus models sold in 2013 were bus models tested between 2010 and 2012. 
The other 80 percent of the sales were assumed to consist of existing 
bus models tested prior to 2010. FTA then estimated the projected 
quantity of failing buses by applying a ratio of the number of tested 
buses that would fail the proposed durability standard by the number of 
bus models tested in that size category to 20 percent of the 2013 bus 
sales figures. This resulting quantity of buses was multiplied by the 
average monetary value of that bus size category and divided by two to 
obtain the average amount of service life value lost assuming that each 
of the failed buses only satisfied 50 percent of their service life 
requirement. FTA notes that this analysis assumes that all six models 
were not modified by the manufacturer prior to procurement, as the 
agency has no information concerning whether or not any modifications 
did in fact occur. If modifications did occur, then the potential 
benefits discussed here may be overstated.
    FTA notes here that although FTA conducted this analysis, FTA did 
not include these values in its quantitative calculation of benefits. 
FTA conducted this analysis to inform FTA's qualitative assumption of 
potential benefits. FTA found, as shown above in Table H-6, that the 
potential for a major cost reduction for the industry is great, but FTA 
is uncertain of the potential aggregate savings on a year-to-year basis 
into the future as the industry adapts to the new requirements.
    As another baseline, the lost service life value of two tested bus 
models known to have failed in service but outside the study window 
from 2010-2012 was also estimated. The results of this analysis are 
presented in Table H-8. Again, while FTA performed this analysis, FTA 
did not include these values in FTA's quantitative calculation of 
benefits. FTA used this analysis to inform FTA's qualitative assumption 
of potential benefits. FTA found again, as shown in Table H-8, that the 
potential for a major cost reduction for the industry is great, but FTA 
is uncertain of the potential aggregate savings on a year-to-year basis 
into the future as the industry adapts to the new requirements.

                      Table H-8--Estimated Service Life Value Loss of Two Failed Bus Models
 [Estimated benefits from service life loss prevention of proposed durability requirements with known bus models
                                    that failed in service from 2003 to 2013]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Estimated annual
                                                                                              service life value
                          Bus size                               Quantity       Initial bus    loss (assumes bus
                                                                                 value ($)     retirement at 50%
                                                                                                   life) ($)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60 foot articulated.........................................             226         451,328          51,000,064
23 foot hybrid electric.....................................              70         150,000           5,250,000
Total Service Value Loss....................................  ..............  ..............          56,250,064
Estimated Annual Loss over 2003-2013........................  ..............  ..............           5,625,006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FTA, though, was able to quantify benefits provided by the 
durability performance standards in the form of reduced unscheduled 
maintenance, which FTA estimates to be $531,990 per year. FTA was only 
able to estimate the reduction in labor costs and not the associated 
reduction in the costs of replacement components. The basis for the 
reduction in labor costs was the estimated reduction in unscheduled 
maintenance hours after the design remedies for structural and 
powertrain durability were applied to the failing bus models identified 
in the study group. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 
H-9.

                                                Table H-9--Benefits From Reduced Unscheduled Maintenance
                        [Benefit derived from reduced bus maintenance requirements as a result of proposed durability standards]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Average
                                                                      unscheduled       Average        Estimated     Benefit from
                                                      # of tested     maintenance     unscheduled     quantity of    the reduction
                                                      models that    hours per bus    maintenance    buses sold in  in maintenance    Benefit from the
                                     Service Life       failed       eliminated by   hours per bus  2013 that have   hours @20.35/    reduction in the
             Bus size               Category (yrs)    durability      durability     avoided over     failed the      hr (diesel    amount of components
                                                    (structural or     standard       50% service      proposed         service           replaced
                                                      powertrain)     during test     life (until     durability      technician)
                                                                     (25% service        early         standard           ($)
                                                                         life)        retirement)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>55 foot articulated..............              12               0               0               0               0               0  unknown.

[[Page 50385]]

 
45 foot...........................              12               0               0               0               0               0  unknown.
40 foot...........................              12               1             103             206              38         159,300  unknown.
35 ft.............................              12               1             113             226              37         170,167  unknown.
30 ft.............................              10               1               4               8              14           2,279  unknown.
<27 foot..........................         4, 5, 7               3              82             164              60         200,244  unknown.
                                   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................  ..............               6  ..............  ..............             149         531,990  ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FTA believes the scoring system will provide benefits in the areas 
of reduced unscheduled maintenance, reduced safety risk, with the 
faster comprehension of test results, and provide industry motivation 
to seek bus models with higher test scores.
    FTA is confident the revisions to the bus pay loading procedures 
that require the posting of the maximum rated standee passenger load on 
the interior bus bulkhead will provide benefits in the areas of greater 
probability of a bus meeting its service life requirements, reduced 
amounts of unscheduled maintenance, reduced safety risk, and greater 
understanding of the total rated bus passenger capacity.
    FTA believes that eliminating the current on-road fuel economy test 
and only publishing the fuel economy test results from the dynamometer 
based test will provide recipients more realistic and reliable test 
results than the current on-road fuel economy test. Having only one set 
of fuel economy test results will also eliminate the potential 
confusion to recipients and manufacturers with respect to the scoring 
of the test results. FTA was unable to quantify the benefits, beyond 
the program cost reduction, of eliminating the on-road fuel economy 
test.
    Regarding the revision to the bus passenger load for the emissions 
testing to seated load weight instead of the 2/3 seated load weight 
that was unique in the emission test, the benefit of this change is a 
minor cost reduction from the reduced labor of unloading and loading 1/
3 of the seated load weight just for this test. FTA does not expect any 
other benefits from this approach.
    The entrance requirements are expected to provide benefits with 
reduced safety risk, greater awareness and accuracy of the bus 
passenger capacity, greater understanding of Buy America implications 
on bus configurations with respect to major components, and prevention 
of unnecessary retesting due to bus production configuration anomalies 
discovered during or after the test is completed.
    The primary benefit of the revisions to the scheduling of testing 
requirements is that the process will be the same whether it is a 
request for full testing or partial testing. By establishing a single 
point of entry for the program there will be less confusion about the 
program requirements and the process and consistency in the resulting 
determinations.
    The benefit of the test requirements review milestone is a program 
event that will deliver the benefits of the bus entrance requirements. 
This milestone will provide all testing stakeholders (manufacturer, Bus 
Testing Facility operator, FTA, and potential purchasers) a clear 
understanding of a new bus model's program eligibility and readiness 
for testing.
    The penalty for unauthorized maintenance and modification is the 
repeat of all potentially affected tests. This rule provides benefits 
in all the categories identified except with the ``simplified test 
scheduling and elimination of unnecessary testing'' category.
Summary of Costs and Benefits for Bus Model Testing
    The annual incremental cost of the rule is $159,369 and the 
quantified annual benefit of future bus tests is expected to be 
$531,990, giving an annual net benefit of $372,621. The costs and 
benefits of the rule are expected to be the same each year into the 
future.
Summary of Overall Costs and Benefits
    Using a 3 and 7 percent discount rate over a ten-year analysis 
period for the annual costs and benefits developed above, the Net 
Present Value of the changes encompassed within this rule would yield a 
net benefit of $3,178,533 at 3 percent discount rate and $2,617,134 at 
7 percent discount rate, as shown in Table H-14.

                              Table H-10--Summary of Quantified Costs and Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Discounted Net Benefits @
              Year                     Costs         Benefits      Net Cash Flow -------------------------------
                                                                                        3%              7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................        $159,369        $531,990        $372,621        $361,768        $348,244
2...............................         159,369         531,990         372,621         351,231         325,462
3...............................         159,369         531,990         372,621         341,001         304,170
4...............................         159,369         531,990         372,621         331,069         284,271
5...............................         159,369         531,990         372,621         321,426         265,674
6...............................         159,369         531,990         372,621         312,064         248,293
7...............................         159,369         531,990         372,621         302,975         232,050
8...............................         159,369         531,990         372,621         294,150         216,869

[[Page 50386]]

 
9...............................         159,369         531,990         372,621         285,583         202,681
10..............................         159,369         531,990         372,621         277,265         189,422
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Net Present Value...........  ..............  ..............  ..............       3,178,533       2,617,134
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism'''). This 
rule does not include any regulation that has substantial direct 
effects on the States, the relationship between the national government 
and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among 
the various levels of government. Therefore, the consultation and 
funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.

Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments)

    This rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 and because this rule does 
not have tribal implications and does not impose direct compliance 
costs, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 
13175 do not apply.

Executive Order 13272 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding 
intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do 
not apply to this rulemaking.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-611) requires each 
agency to analyze regulations and proposals to assess their impact on 
small businesses and other small entities to determine whether the rule 
or proposal will have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Although the testing requirement imposes 
compliance costs on the regulated industry, including bus manufacturers 
who meet the definition of ``small businesses,'' Congress has 
authorized FTA to pay 80% of the bus manufacturer's testing fee, 
defraying the direct financial impact on these entities. FTA has 
estimated the additional costs and the projected benefits of this rule 
and certifies that this rule would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532, et seq.) 
requires agencies to evaluate whether an agency action would result in 
the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $155 million or more (as 
adjusted for inflation) in any one year, and if so, to take steps to 
minimize these unfunded mandates. FTA does not believe the rulemaking 
would result in expenditures exceeding this level.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520), a Federal agency must obtain approval from OMB before conducting 
or sponsoring a collection of information as defined by the PRA. 
Because today's regulation contains a new provision that would require 
manufacturers to provide technical specifications regarding their 
vehicles to FTA in order to receive approval to proceed with testing, 
FTA submitted a revised information collection estimate to OMB and 
invited comment on the information collection burden estimate published 
in the NPRM.

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory 
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The 
Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in 
April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading 
of this document may be used to cross-reference this action with the 
Unified Agenda.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended 
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), requires Federal agencies to consider the 
consequences of major federal actions and prepare a detailed statement 
on actions significantly affecting the quality of the human 
environment. FTA has determined that this rulemaking is categorically 
excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4).

Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form for all comments 
received into any of FTA's dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comments (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
www.regulations.gov.

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

    Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,'' and DOT 
Order 5610.2(a), ``Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 
Populations and Low-Income Populations (see, www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/environmental_justice/ej_at_dot/order_56102a/index.cfm), 
require DOT agencies to achieve environmental justice (EJ) as part of 
their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects, including interrelated social and economic effects, of their 
programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-
income populations in the United States. The DOT Order requires DOT 
agencies to address compliance with the Executive Order and the DOT 
Order in all rulemaking activities. To meet this goal, FTA has issued 
additional final guidance in the form of a circular (Circular 4703.1, 
``FTA Policy Guidance for Federal Transit Recipients,'' July 17, 2012; 
http://www.fta.dot.gov/legislation_law/12349_14740.html), to implement 
Executive Order 12898 and DOT Order 5610.2(a).
    FTA evaluated this rule under the Executive Order, the DOT Order, 
and the FTA Circular. Environmental justice principles, in the context 
of establishing a quantitative scoring system for public transit 
vehicles, fall outside the scope of applicability.

[[Page 50387]]

    Nothing inherent in today's regulation would disproportionately 
impact minority or low income populations, as the primary parties 
affected by this rule are those transit vehicle manufactures who would 
be subject to the bus testing procedures and the new quantitative 
scoring system. FTA has determined that the regulation would not cause 
disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental 
effects on minority or low income populations.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 665

    Buses, Grant programs--transportation, Public transportation, Motor 
vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Federal Transit 
Administration revises 49 CFR Part 665 as set forth below:

Title 49--Transportation

PART 665--BUS TESTING

Subpart A--General
Sec.
665.1 Purpose.
665.3 Scope.
665.5 Definitions.
665.7 Certification of compliance.
Subpart B--Bus Testing Procedures
665.11 Testing requirements.
665.13 Test report and manufacturer certification.
Subpart C--Operations
665.21 Scheduling.
665.23 Fees.
665.25 Transportation of vehicle.
665.27 Procedures during testing.
Appendix A to Part 665--Bus Model Scoring System and Pass/Fail 
Standard

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 5318 and 49 CFR 1.91.

Subpart A--General


Sec.  665.1  Purpose.

    An applicant for Federal financial assistance for the purchase or 
lease of buses with funds obligated by the FTA shall certify to the FTA 
that any new bus model acquired with such assistance has been tested 
and has received a passing test score in accordance with this part. 
This part contains the information necessary for a recipient to ensure 
compliance with this provision.


Sec.  665.3  Scope.

    This part shall apply to an entity receiving Federal financial 
assistance under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53.


Sec.  665.5  Definitions.

    As used in this part--
    Administrator means the Administrator of the Federal Transit 
Administration or the Administrator's designee.
    Automotive means that the bus is not continuously dependent on 
external power or guidance for normal operation. Intermittent use of 
external power shall not automatically exclude a bus of its automotive 
character or the testing requirement.
    Bus means a rubber-tired automotive vehicle used for the provision 
of public transportation service by or for a recipient of FTA financial 
assistance.
    Bus model means a bus design or variation of a bus design usually 
designated by the manufacturer by a specific name and/or model number.
    Bus Testing Facility means the facility used by the entity selected 
by FTA to conduct the bus testing program, including test track 
facilities operated in connection with the program.
    Bus Testing Report means the complete test report for a bus model, 
documenting the results of performing the complete set of bus tests on 
a bus model.
    Curb weight means the weight of the bus including maximum fuel, 
oil, and coolant; but without passengers or driver.
    Emissions means the components of the engine tailpipe exhaust that 
are regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA), plus carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4).
    Emissions control system means the components on a bus whose 
primary purpose is to minimize regulated emissions before they exit the 
tailpipe. This definition does not include components that contribute 
to low emissions as a side effect of the manner in which they perform 
their primary function (e.g., fuel injectors or combustion chambers).
    Final acceptance means the formal approval by the recipient that 
the vehicle has met all of its bid specifications and the recipient has 
received proper title.
    Gross weight (Gross Vehicle Weight, or GVW) means the seated load 
weight of the bus plus 150 pounds of ballast for each standee 
passenger, up to and including, the maximum rated standee passenger 
capacity identified on the bus interior bulkhead.
    Hybrid means a propulsion system that combines two power sources, 
at least one of which is capable of capturing, storing, and re-using 
energy.
    Major change in chassis design means, for vehicles manufactured on 
a third-party chassis, a change in frame structure, material or 
configuration, or a change in chassis suspension type.
    Major change in components means:
    (1) For those vehicles that are not manufactured on a third-party 
chassis, a change in a vehicle's engine, axle, transmission, 
suspension, or steering components;
    (2) For those that are manufactured on a third-party chassis, a 
change in the vehicle's chassis from one major design to another.
    Major change in configuration means a change that is expected to 
have a significant impact on vehicle handling and stability or 
structural integrity.
    Modified third-party chassis or van means a vehicle that is 
manufactured from an incomplete, partially assembled third-party 
chassis or van as provided by an OEM to a small bus manufacturer. This 
includes vehicles whose chassis structure has been modified to include: 
A tandem or tag axle; a drop or lowered floor; changes to the GVWR from 
the OEM rating; or other modifications that are not made in strict 
conformance with the OEM's modifications guidelines where they exist.
    New bus model means a bus model that--
    (1) Has not been used in public transportation service in the 
United States before October 1, 1988; or
    (2) Has been used in such service but which after September 30, 
1988, is being produced with a major change in configuration or a major 
change in components.
    Operator means the operator of the Bus Testing Facility.
    Original equipment manufacturer (OEM) means the original 
manufacturer of a chassis or van supplied as a complete or incomplete 
vehicle to a bus manufacturer.
    Parking brake means a system that prevents the bus from moving when 
parked by preventing the wheels from rotating.
    Partial testing means the performance of only that subset of the 
complete set of bus tests in which significantly different data would 
reasonably be expected compared to the data obtained in previous full 
testing of the baseline bus model at the Bus Testing Facility.
    Partial testing report, also partial test report, means a report 
documenting, for a previously-tested bus model that is produced with 
major changes, the results of performing only that subset of the 
complete set of bus tests in which significantly different data would 
reasonably be expected as a result of the changes made to the bus from 
the configuration documented in the original full Bus Testing Report. A 
partial testing report is not valid unless

[[Page 50388]]

accompanied by the corresponding full Bus Testing Report for the 
corresponding baseline bus configuration.
    Public transportation service means the operation of a vehicle that 
provides general or special service to the public on a regular and 
continuing basis consistent with 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53.
    Recipient means an entity that receives funds under 49 U.S.C. 
Chapter 53, either directly from FTA or through a direct recipient.
    Regenerative braking system means a system that decelerates a bus 
by recovering its kinetic energy for on-board storage and subsequent 
use.
    Retarder means a system other than the service brakes that slows a 
bus by dissipating kinetic energy.
    Seated load weight means the curb weight of the bus plus the seated 
passenger load simulated by adding 150 pounds of ballast to each 
seating position and 600 pounds per wheelchair position.
    Service brake(s) means the primary system used by the driver during 
normal operation to reduce the speed of a moving bus and to allow the 
driver to bring the bus to a controlled stop and hold it there. Service 
brakes may be supplemented by retarders or by regenerative braking 
systems.
    Small bus manufacturer means a secondary market assembler that 
acquires a chassis or van from an OEM for subsequent modification or 
assembly and sale as 5-year/150,000-mile or 4-year/100,000-mile minimum 
service life vehicle.
    Tailpipe emissions means the exhaust constituents actually emitted 
to the atmosphere at the exit of the vehicle tailpipe or corresponding 
system.
    Third party chassis means a commercially available chassis whose 
design, manufacturing, and quality control are performed by an entity 
independent of the bus manufacturer.
    Unmodified mass-produced van means a van that is mass-produced, 
complete and fully assembled as provided by an OEM. This shall include 
vans with raised roofs, and/or wheelchair lifts, or ramps that are 
installed by the OEM or by a party other than the OEM provided that the 
installation of these components is completed in strict conformance 
with the OEM modification guidelines.
    Unmodified third-party chassis means a third-party chassis that 
either has not been modified, or has been modified in strict 
conformance with the OEM's modification guidelines.


Sec.  665.7  Certification of compliance.

    (a) In each application to FTA for the purchase or lease of any new 
bus model, or any bus model with a major change in configuration or 
components to be acquired or leased with funds obligated by the FTA, 
the recipient shall certify that the bus was tested at the Bus Testing 
Facility and that the bus received a passing test score as required in 
this part. The recipient shall receive the appropriate full Bus Testing 
Report and any applicable partial testing report(s) before final 
acceptance of the first vehicle.
    (b) In dealing with a bus manufacturer or dealer, the recipient 
shall be responsible for determining whether a vehicle to be acquired 
requires full testing or partial testing or has already satisfied the 
requirements of this part. A bus manufacturer or recipient may request 
guidance from FTA.

Subpart B--Bus Testing Procedures


Sec.  665.11  Testing requirements.

    (a) In order to be tested at the Bus Testing Facility, a new model 
bus shall--
    (1) Be a single model that complies with NHTSA requirements at 49 
CFR part 565 Vehicle Identification Number Requirements; 49 CFR part 
566 Manufacturer Identification; 49 CFR part 567 Certification; and 
where applicable, 49 CFR part 568 Vehicle Manufactured in Two or More 
Stages--All Incomplete, Intermediate and Final-Stage Manufacturers of 
Vehicle Manufactured in Two or More Stages;
    (2) Have been produced by an entity whose Disadvantaged Business 
Enterprise DBE goals have been submitted to FTA pursuant to 49 CFR part 
26;
    (3) Identify the maximum rated quantity of standee passengers on 
the interior bulkhead in 2 inch tall or greater characters;
    (4) Meet all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, as 
defined by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in part 
571 of this title; and
    (5) Be substantially fabricated and assembled using the techniques, 
tooling, and materials that will be used in production of subsequent 
buses of that model with the manufacturing point of origin for the bus 
structure, the axles, the foundation brakes, the propulsion power 
system and auxiliary power systems (engine, transmission, traction 
batteries, electric motor(s), fuel cell(s)), and the primary energy 
storage and delivery systems (fuel tanks, fuel injectors & manifolds, 
and the fuel injection electronic control unit) identified in the test 
request submitted to FTA during the scheduling process.
    (b) If the new bus model has not previously been tested at the Bus 
Testing Facility, then the new bus model shall undergo the full tests 
requirements for Maintainability, Reliability, Safety, Performance 
(including Braking Performance), Structural Integrity, Fuel Economy, 
Noise, and Emissions Tests.
    (c) If the new bus model has not previously been tested at the Bus 
Testing Facility and is being produced on a third-party chassis that 
has been previously tested on another bus model at the Bus Testing 
Facility, then the new bus model may undergo partial testing in place 
of full testing.
    (d) If the new bus model has previously been tested at the Bus 
Testing Facility, but is subsequently manufactured with a major change 
in chassis or components, then the new bus model may undergo partial 
testing in place of full testing.
    (e) Buses shall be tested according to the service life 
requirements identified in the prevailing published version of FTA 
Circular 5010.
    (f) Tests performed in a higher service life category (i.e., longer 
service life) need not be repeated when the same bus model is used in 
lesser service life applications.


Sec.  665.13  Test report and manufacturer certification.

    (a) The operator of the Bus Testing Facility shall implement the 
performance standards and scoring system set forth in this part.
    (b) Upon completion of testing, the operator of the facility shall 
provide the scored test results and the resulting test report to the 
entity that submitted the bus for testing and to FTA. The test report 
will be available to recipients only after both the bus manufacturer 
and FTA have approved it for release. If the bus manufacturer declines 
to release the report, or if the bus did not achieve a passing test 
score, the vehicle will be ineligible for FTA financial assistance.
    (c)(1) A manufacturer or dealer of a new bus model or a bus 
produced with a major change in component or configuration shall 
provide a copy of the corresponding full Bus Testing Report and any 
applicable partial testing report(s) to a recipient during the point in 
the procurement process specified by the recipient, but in all cases 
before final acceptance of the first bus by the recipient.
    (2) A manufacturer who releases a report under paragraph (c)(1) of 
this section also shall provide notice to the operator of the facility 
that the test

[[Page 50389]]

results and the test report are to be made available to the public.
    (d) If a tested bus model with a Bus Testing Report undergoes a 
subsequent major change in component or configuration, the manufacturer 
or dealer shall advise the recipient during the procurement process and 
shall include a description of the change. Any party may ask FTA for 
confirmation regarding the scope of the change.
    (e) A Bus Testing Report shall be available publicly once the bus 
manufacturer makes it available during a recipient's procurement 
process. The operator of the facility shall have copies of all the 
publicly available reports available for distribution. The operator 
shall make the final test results from the approved report available 
electronically and accessible over the internet.
    (f) The Bus Testing Report and the test results are the only 
official information and documentation that shall be made publicly 
available in connection with any bus model tested at the Bus Testing 
Facility.

Subpart C--Operations


Sec.  665.21  Scheduling.

    (a) All requests for testing, including requests for full, partial, 
or repeat testing, shall be submitted to the FTA Bus Testing Program 
Manager for review prior to scheduling with the operator of the Bus 
Testing Facility. All test requests shall provide: A detailed 
description of the new bus model to be tested; the service life 
category of the bus; engineering level documentation characterizing all 
major changes to the bus model; and documentation that demonstrates 
satisfaction of each one of the testing requirements outlined in 
section 665.11(a).
    (b) FTA will review the request, determine if the bus model is 
eligible for testing, and provide an initial response within five (5) 
business days. FTA will prepare a written response to the requester for 
use in scheduling the required testing.
    (c) To schedule a bus for testing, a manufacturer shall contact the 
operator of the Bus Testing Facility and provide the FTA response to 
the test request. Contact information and procedures for scheduling 
testing are available on the operator's Bus Testing Web site, http://www.altoonabustest.com.
    (d) Upon contacting the operator, the operator shall provide the 
manufacturer with the following:
    (1) A draft contract for the testing;
    (2) A fee schedule; and
    (3) The test procedures for the tests that will be conducted on the 
vehicle.
    (e) The operator shall process vehicles FTA has approved for 
testing in the order in which the contracts are signed.


Sec.  665.23  Fees.

    (a) The operator shall charge fees in accordance with a schedule 
approved by FTA, which shall include different fees for partial 
testing.
    (b) Fees shall be prorated for a vehicle withdrawn from the Bus 
Testing Facility before the completion of testing.
    (c) The manufacturer's portion of the test fee shall be used first 
during the conduct of testing. The operator of the Bus Testing Facility 
shall obtain approval from FTA prior to continuing testing of each bus 
model at the Bus testing program's expense after the manufacturer's fee 
has been expended.


Sec.  665.25  Transportation of vehicle.

    A manufacturer shall be responsible for transporting its vehicle to 
and from the Bus Testing Facility at the beginning and completion of 
the testing at the manufacturer's own risk and expense.


Sec.  665.27  Procedures during testing.

    (a) Upon receipt of a bus approved for testing the operator of the 
Bus Testing Facility shall:
    (1) Inspect the bus design configuration and compare it to the 
configuration documented in the test request;
    (2) Determine if the bus, when loaded to Gross Weight, does not 
exceed its Gross Vehicle Weight Rating, Gross Axle Weight Ratings, or 
maximum tire load ratings;
    (3) Determine if the bus is capable of negotiating the durability 
test track at curb weight, seated load weight, and Gross Vehicle 
Weight;
    (4) Determine if the bus is capable of performing the Fuel Economy 
and Emissions Test duty cycles within the established standards for 
speed deviation.
    (b) The operator shall present the results obtained from the 
activities of 665.27(a) and present them to the bus manufacturer and 
the FTA Bus Testing Program Manager for review prior to initiating 
testing using the Bus testing program funds. FTA will provide a written 
response within five (5) business days to authorize the start of 
testing or to request clarification for any discrepancies noted from 
the activities of 665.27(a). Testing can commence after five (5) 
business days if FTA does not provide a response.
    (c) The operator shall perform all maintenance and repairs on the 
test vehicle, consistent with the manufacturer's specifications, unless 
the operator determines that the nature of the maintenance or repair is 
best performed by the manufacturer under the operator's supervision.
    (d) The manufacturer shall be permitted to observe all tests. The 
manufacturer shall not provide maintenance or service unless requested 
to do so by the operator.
    (e) The operator shall investigate each occurrence of unauthorized 
maintenance and repairs and determine the potential impact to the 
validity of the test results. Tests where the results could have been 
impacted must be repeated at the manufacturer's expense.
    (f) The operator shall perform all modifications on the test 
vehicle, consistent with the manufacturer's specifications, unless the 
operator determines that the nature of the modification is best 
performed by the manufacturer under the operator's supervision. All 
vehicle modifications performed after the test has started will first 
require review and approval by FTA. If the modification is determined 
to be a major change, some or all of the tests already completed shall 
be repeated or extended at FTA's discretion.
    (g) The operator shall halt testing after any occurrence of 
unapproved, unauthorized, or unsupervised test vehicle modifications. 
Following an occurrence of unapproved or unsupervised test vehicle 
modifications, the vehicle manufacturer shall submit a new test request 
to FTA that addresses all the requirements in 665.11 to reenter the Bus 
testing program.
    (h) The operator shall perform eight categories of tests on new bus 
models. The eight tests and their corresponding performance standards 
are described in the following paragraphs.
    (1) Maintainability test. The Maintainability test shall include 
bus servicing, preventive maintenance, inspection, and repair. It shall 
also include the removal and reinstallation of the engine and drive-
train components that would be expected to require replacement during 
the bus's normal life cycle. Much of the maintainability data should be 
obtained during the Bus Durability Test. All servicing, preventive 
maintenance, and repair actions shall be recorded and reported. These 
actions shall be performed by test facility staff, although 
manufacturers shall be allowed to maintain a representative on-site 
during the testing. Test facility staff may require a manufacturer to 
provide vehicle servicing or repair under the supervision of the 
facility staff. Since the operator may not be familiar with the 
detailed design of all new bus models that are tested, tests to

[[Page 50390]]

determine the time and skill required for removing and reinstalling an 
engine, a transmission, or other major propulsion system components may 
require advice from the bus manufacturer. All routine and corrective 
maintenance shall be carried out by the operator in accordance with the 
manufacturer's specifications.
    (i) The Maintainability Test Report shall include the frequency, 
personnel hours, and replacement parts or supplies required for each 
action during the test. The accessibility of selected components and 
other observations that could be important to a bus purchaser shall be 
included in the report.
    (ii) The performance standard for Maintainability is that no 
greater than 125 hours of total unscheduled maintenance shall be 
accumulated over the execution of a full test.
    (2) Reliability test. Reliability shall not be a separate test, but 
shall be addressed by recording all bus failures and breakdowns during 
all other testing. The detected bus failures, repair time, and the 
actions required to return the bus to operation shall be presented in 
the report. The performance standard for Reliability is that the 
vehicle under test experience no more than one uncorrected Class 1 
failure and two uncorrected Class 2 failures over the execution of a 
full test. Class 1 failures are addressed in the Safety Test, below. An 
uncorrected Class 2 failure is a failure mode not addressed by a design 
or component modification that would cause a transit vehicle to be 
unable to complete its transit route and require towing or on-route 
repairs. A failure is considered corrected when a design or component 
modification is validated through sufficient remaining or additional 
reliability testing in which the failure does not reoccur.
    (3) Safety test. The Safety Test shall consist of a Handling and 
Stability Test, a Braking Performance Test, and a review of the Class 1 
reliability failures that occurred during the test. The Handling and 
Stability Test shall be an obstacle avoidance double-lane change test 
performed on a smooth and level test track. The lane change course will 
be set up using pylons to mark off two 12 foot center to center lanes 
with two 100 foot lane change areas 100 feet apart. Bus speed shall be 
held constant throughout a given test run. Individual test runs shall 
be made at increasing speeds up to a specified maximum or until the bus 
can no longer be operated safely over the course, whichever speed is 
lower. Both left- and right-hand lane changes shall be tested. The 
performance standard is that the test vehicle can safely negotiate and 
remain within the lane change test course at a speed of no less than 45 
mph.
    (i) The functionality and performance of the service, regenerative 
(if applicable), and parking brake systems shall be evaluated at the 
test track. The test bus shall be subjected to a series of brake stops 
from specified speeds on high, low, and split-friction surfaces. The 
parking brake shall be evaluated with the bus parked facing both up and 
down a steep grade. There are three performance standards for braking. 
The stopping distance from a speed of 45 mph on a high friction surface 
shall satisfy the bus stopping distance requirements of FMVSS 105 or 
121 as applicable. The bus shall remain within a standard 12-foot lane 
width during split coefficient brake stops. The parking brake shall 
hold the test vehicle stationary on a 20 percent grade facing up and 
down the grade for a period of 5 minutes.
    (ii) A review of all the Class 1 failures that occurred during the 
test shall be conducted as part of the Safety Test. Class 1 failures 
include those failures that, when they occur, could result in a loss of 
vehicle control; in serious injury to the driver, passengers, 
pedestrians, or other motorists; and in property damage or loss due to 
collision or fire. The performance standard is that at the completion 
of testing with no uncorrected Class 1 failure modes. A failure is 
considered corrected when a design or component modification is 
validated through sufficient remaining or additional Reliability Tests 
in which the failure does not reoccur over a number of miles equal to 
or greater than the additional failure up to 100% of the durability 
test mileage for the service life category of the tested bus.
    (4) Performance test. The Performance Test shall measure the 
maximum acceleration, speed, and gradeability capability of the test 
vehicle. In determining the transit vehicle's maximum acceleration and 
speed, the bus shall be accelerated at full throttle from rest until it 
achieves its maximum speed on a level roadway. The performance standard 
for acceleration is that the maximum time that the test vehicle 
requires to achieve 30 mph is 18 seconds on a level grade. The 
gradeability test of the test vehicle shall be calculated based on the 
data measured on a level grade during the Acceleration Test. The 
performance standard for the gradeability test is that the test vehicle 
achieves a sustained speed of at least 40 mph on a 2.5 percent grade 
and a sustained speed of at least 10 mph on a 10 percent grade.
    (5) Structural integrity tests. Two complementary Structural 
Integrity Tests shall be performed. Structural Strength and Distortion 
Tests shall be performed at the Bus Testing Center, and the Structural 
Durability Test shall be performed at the test track.
    (i) Structural strength and distortion tests. (1) The bus shall be 
loaded to GVW, with one wheel on top of a curb and then in a pothole. 
This test shall be repeated for all four wheels. The test verifies:
    (i) Normal operation of the steering mechanism and;
    (ii) Operability of all passenger doors, passenger escape 
mechanisms, windows, and service doors. A water leak test shall be 
conducted in each suspension travel condition. The performance standard 
shall be that all vehicle passenger exits remain operational throughout 
the test.
    (2) Using a load-equalizing towing sling, a static tension load 
equal to 1.2 times the curb weight shall be applied to the bus towing 
fixtures (front and rear). The load shall be removed and the two eyes 
and adjoining structure inspected for damages or permanent 
deformations. The performance standard shall be that no permanent 
deformation is experienced at static loads up to 1.2 times the vehicle 
curb weight.
    (3) The bus shall be towed at CW with a heavy wrecker truck for 5 
miles at 20 mph and then inspected for structural damage or permanent 
deformation. The performance standard shall be that the vehicle is 
towable with a standard commercial vehicle wrecker without experiencing 
any permanent damage to the vehicle.
    (4) With the bus at CW, probable damages and clearance issues due 
to tire deflating and hydraulic jacking shall be assessed. The 
performance standard shall be that the vehicle is capable of being 
lifted with a standard commercial vehicle hydraulic jack.
    (5) With the bus at CW, possible damages or deformation associated 
with lifting the bus on a two post hoist system or supporting it on 
jack stands shall be assessed. The performance standard shall be that 
the vehicle is capable of being supported by jack stands rated for the 
vehicle's weight.
    (i) Structural durability test. The Structural Durability Test 
shall be performed on the durability course at the test track, 
simulating twenty-five percent of the vehicle's normal service life. 
The bus structure shall be inspected regularly during the test, and the 
mileage and identification of any structural anomalies and failures 
shall be reported in the Reliability Test. There shall be two 
performance standards for the Durability Test, one to address the

[[Page 50391]]

vehicle frame and body structure and one to address the bus propulsion 
system. The performance standard for the vehicle frame and body 
structure shall be that there are no uncorrected failure modes of the 
vehicle frame and body structure at the completion of the full vehicle 
test. The performance standard for the vehicle propulsion system is 
that there are no uncorrected powertrain failure modes at the 
completion of a full test.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (6) Fuel economy test. The Fuel Economy Test shall be conducted 
using duty cycles that simulate a diverse range of transit service 
operating profiles. This test shall measure the fuel economy or fuel 
consumption of the vehicle and present the results in metrics that 
minimize the number of unit conversions for mass, volume, and energy.
    (i) The Fuel Economy Test shall be designed only to enable FTA 
recipients to compare the relative fuel economy of buses operating at a 
consistent loading condition on the same set of typical transit driving 
cycles. The results of this test are not directly comparable to fuel 
economy estimates by other agencies, such as the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) or U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) or for other purposes.
    (ii) The performance standard for fuel economy shall be the 
prevailing model year fuel consumption standards for heavy-duty 
vocational vehicles outlined in the NHTSA's Medium and Heavy-Duty Fuel 
Efficiency Program (49 CFR part 535).
    (7) Noise test. The Noise Test shall measure interior noise and 
vibration while the bus is idling (or in a comparable operating mode) 
and driving over smooth and irregular road surfaces, and also shall 
measure the transmission of exterior noise to the interior while the 
bus is not running. The exterior noise shall be measured as the bus is 
operated past a stationary measurement instrument. There shall be two 
minimum noise performance standards: One to address the maximum 
interior noise during vehicle acceleration from a stop, and one to 
address the maximum exterior noise during vehicle acceleration from a 
stop. The performance standard for interior noise while the vehicle 
accelerates from 0-35 mph shall be no greater than 80 decibels A-
weighted. The performance standard for exterior noise while the vehicle 
accelerates from 0-35 miles per hour shall be no greater than 83 
decibels A-weighted.
    (8) Emissions test. The Emissions Test shall measure tailpipe 
emissions of those exhaust constituents regulated by the United States 
EPA for transit bus emissions, plus carbon dioxide (CO2) and 
methane (CH4), as the bus is operated over specific 
repeatable transit vehicle driving cycles. The Emissions test shall be 
conducted using an emission testing laboratory equipped with a chassis 
dynamometer capable of both absorbing and applying power.
    (i) The Emissions Test is not a certification test, and is designed 
only to enable FTA recipients to relatively compare the emissions of 
buses operating on the same set of typical transit driving cycles. The 
results of this test are not directly comparable to emissions 
measurements reported to other agencies, such as the EPA, or for other 
purposes.
    (ii) The emissions performance standard shall be the prevailing EPA 
emissions requirements for heavy-duty vehicles outlined in 40 CFR part 
86 and 40 CFR part 1037.

Appendix A to Part 665--Bus Model Scoring System and the Pass/Fail 
Standard

1. Bus Model Scoring System

    The Bus Model Scoring System shall be used to score the test 
results using the performance standards in each category. A bus 
model that fails to meet a minimum performance standard shall be 
deemed to have failed the test and will not receive an aggregate 
score. For buses that have passed all the minimum performance 
standards, an aggregate score shall be generated and presented in 
each Bus Testing Report. A bus model that just satisfies the minimum 
baseline performance standard and does not exceed any of the 
standards shall receive a score of 60. The maximum score a bus model 
shall receive is 100. The minimum and maximum points available in 
each test category shall be as shown below in Table A. The Bus 
Testing report will include a scoring summary table that displays 
the resulting scores in each of the test categories and 
subcategories. The scoring summary table shall have a disclaimer 
footnote stating that the use of the scoring system is not 
mandatory, only that the bus being procured receive a passing score.

2. Pass/Fail Standard

    The passing standard shall be a score of 60. Bus models that 
fail to meet one or more of the minimum baseline performance 
standards will be ineligible to obtain an aggregate passing score.
BILLING CODE P

[[Page 50392]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01AU16.000


[[Page 50393]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01AU16.001



[[Page 50394]]


Carolyn Flowers,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-17889 Filed 7-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE C