Bus Testing; Phase-In of Brake Performance and Emissions Testing, and Program Updates

AGENCY:

Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This final rule amends the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA's) bus testing regulation to incorporate brake performance and emissions tests into FTA's bus testing program to comply with statutory changes. To improve the program, this final rule also republishes the existing regulation to incorporate several updates that will enhance the program's value and respond to changes in the bus manufacturing industry and to bring it into conformity with statutory language.

DATES:

This rule is effective January 1, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For technical information, Marcel Belanger, Bus Testing Program Manager, Office of Research, Demonstration, and Innovation (TRI), (202) 366-0725, marcel.belanger@dot.gov. For legal information, Richard Wong, Office of the Chief Counsel (TCC), (202) 366-0675, richard.wong@dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On September 30, 2008, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (73 FR 56781) that discussed proposals to incorporate brake performance and emissions tests into FTA's bus testing program as required by 49 U.S.C. Section 5318, as amended by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Equitable Transportation Efficiency Act: a Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59). These changes required by statute included a brake performance test procedure and an emissions test procedure.

The NPRM also sought comments on a number of other proposed ways to update the regulation to improve the functioning of the program, enhance its value, and clarify possible ambiguities in the existing regulation. These proposed changes, which were not required by statute, but were intended to improve the program, addressed issues related to: (1) The determination of service life category; (2) testing of buses that exceed weight limits when fully loaded; (3) clarification of FTA's “Family of Vehicles” policy; (4) separate reporting of third-party chassis test results; and, (5) the inclusion of an FTA evaluation or recommendation of bus models in bus testing reports.

Comments Received

FTA received a total of five comments—one from a major industry trade association consisting of more than 1,500 public and private members, one from a large public transit agency, a third from a manufacturer trade association representing almost 700 companies making motor vehicle components, the fourth from a manufacturer of large heavy-duty transit buses, and the fifth from an engineering consulting firm that provides consulting and test equipment for heavy-duty vehicles and brake systems.

Section-by-Section Analysis of Specific Comments

1. Brake Performance Test Procedure

FTA proposed that a test bus would be subjected to a series of brake stops from 20, 30, 40, and 45 mph on a high-friction surface; from 20 mph on a low-friction surface; and up to 45 mph on a split-coefficient surface. The parking brake would be evaluated facing uphill and downhill on a ramp with a 20 percent grade. FTA also sought comments on whether, and, if so, how, the maintainability and noise tests should be modified to capture useful data related to the brake system and whether any such changes should be done within the regulation itself or through non-regulatory testing protocols and procedures.

FTA proposed to incorporate the brake performance test within the existing performance test category, as specified by SAFETEA-LU. The proposed test procedure specified that all brake performance tests would be performed with the bus loaded to gross vehicle weight, for which a definition would be provided in the revised 49 CFR Section 665.5.

A. Comments Received

FTA received comments on the proposed braking performance test from all respondents. Most of the comments received pertained to details of the sub-regulatory test procedures that would be used to conduct the braking performance test; for example, recommending that FTA measure brake system temperatures by the installation of thermocouples in the brake linings rather than the proposed use of a non-contacting digital thermometer.

A few comments referred to differences between the draft FTA test procedures and the procedures specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 121. For example, FTA's proposed test procedure assumes that the brakes would be adequately burnished following completion of the gross-vehicle-weight portion of the structural durability test, while FMVSS 121 specifies a detailed brake burnishing procedure. Another comment noted that some buses may not be able to climb the 20 percent slope parking brake testing hill or may not be able to clear the hill's transition ramps, and questioned what the testing options would be in such situations. This commenter also asked who would be responsible if a bus is damaged on the brake testing slope.

B. FTA Response

Since the regulation is only intended to outline the tests that would be performed in general terms, specific details of the sub-regulatory test procedures are not appropriate to address in the regulation itself. Instead, FTA will consider each of the comments received as we work with the facility operator to finalize the brake testing procedures.

With regard to consistency between FMVSS 121 certification and the bus testing program, FTA reiterates that its bus testing program is not a certification test. Rather, its purpose is to provide data that can facilitate grantees' comparisons of various transit bus models and provide indications of whether the contemplated bus model is suitable for a grantee's intended application. Therefore, it is not necessary for the bus testing program to replicate the test procedures in FMVSS 121. FTA believes that the operation on the test track and occasional operation on roadways between the Altoona Bus Testing Center and the Test Track Facility in State College should be adequate to produce a realistic real-world level of brake burnishing prior to conducting the brake performance tests. However, because this aspect of the test procedure will not be established by regulation, FTA will work with the bus testing facility operator to verify that its proposed burnishing procedure is adequate, or add additional steps to the procedure if that is determined to be necessary.

With regard to the concerns that buses may have difficulty navigating the test slope, the slope was designed to replicate conditions that could be encountered in a transit bus environment, so most if not all buses should be able to negotiate it without difficulty. In rare cases where clearance is inadequate, the operator can likely devise a workaround, perhaps such as filling in the concave transition at the bottom of the slope with temporary ramps or gravel. In the unlikely event that a bus has inadequate torque at the driving wheels to climb the 20 percent slope, then potential customers will likely want to know that limitation. If a bus is unable to navigate the ascent in order to complete the brake test, a bus could be assisted into position using a tow truck.

The operator has existing procedures in place to address damages that may occur to buses at the testing facility. These procedures will apply to any damages that may occur on the brake testing slope.

2. Emissions Test Procedure

FTA proposed a draft emissions test procedure based on 40 CFR part 86—“Emissions Regulations for New Otto-Cycle and Diesel Heavy-Duty Engines; Gaseous and Particulate Exhaust Test Procedures” and 40 CFR part 1065—“Engine Testing Procedures,” as well as the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice, SAE J2711.

FTA proposed using an emissions testing laboratory equipped with a chassis dynamometer capable of both absorbing and applying power. FTA proposed measuring the emissions of exhaust constituents regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for transit buses, plus carbon dioxide (CO₂) and methane (CH₄), as the bus is operated over industry-standard driving cycles specified in the test procedure. FTA proposed that mileage accumulated by a bus while operating on the dynamometer during emissions testing would be counted toward the “other” miles that must be accumulated during durability testing. Under the proposed test procedure, the dynamometer would be set to simulate curb weight plus one-half of the fully seated load for the particular bus being tested. This approach would be consistent with the above-cited industry standard emissions measurement protocols and will facilitate direct comparisons with emissions measurements collected outside the bus testing program. FTA also sought comments on the merits of performing the emissions tests with the chassis dynamometer set to simulate gross vehicle weight, which would generally be expected to represent the “worst case” for emissions, seated load weight, which may result in emissions measurements closer to a typical case (and which would be consistent with the Performance and Fuel Economy tests, which are currently performed at seated load weight), or a different weight. FTA also sought comments on whether, and if so, how, the maintainability test should be modified to capture useful data related to the emissions control system and whether any such changes should be made within the regulation itself or in non-regulatory testing policies and procedures administered by the testing facility. FTA proposed to add the emissions test as a separate, eighth, test category.

A. Comments Received

The transit operator and the transit industry association both suggested that FTA test emissions at gross vehicle weight in order to shed light on the “worst case” emissions that might be produced by a bus model. These commenters also recommended that FTA measure emissions at a bus's tailpipe rather than at its engine. The bus manufacturer suggested that FTA's emissions testing procedure should be consistent with other accepted methodologies in order to facilitate comparisons with other sources of emissions data.

B. FTA Response

FTA considered testing emissions at gross vehicle weight, but decided to test buses at curb weight plus one-half of the seated load weight in order to achieve greater consistency with industry-standard methods for emissions testing. FTA initially proposed to, and still intends to, measure bus emissions at the tailpipe exit rather than at the engine exhaust ports. Any confusion regarding the measurement site probably arose from the NPRM's proposed new definition of “Engine-Out Emissions,” which will not be used in the final rule, and, therefore, has been removed.

3. Applicability and Phase-In

FTA proposed that the date on which a bus testing contract was signed would determine the applicability of the brake performance and emissions tests. Models whose testing contracts were signed before the effective date of this regulation and that continue to be produced without major changes in any structure or systems would not be required to return to the Bus Testing Center to undergo brake performance and emissions testing. Buses for which full or partial testing contracts are signed on or after the effective date of this regulation would be subject to brake performance and emissions testing (in addition to the other testing requirements).

FTA also sought comments on whether the emissions test should apply to all vehicles subject to FTA's bus testing regulation or whether any classes of buses should be exempted. In addition, we asked for comments on whether the emissions testing program should begin on the effective date of this rule for all bus types subject to testing or whether the emissions test requirement should be gradually phased-in for various classes of bus (e.g., small or large buses), similar to the phase-in process used in the initial start-up of FTA's bus testing program.

A. Comments Received

The large transit operator agreed with FTA's proposal that emissions testing should begin on the effective date of the final rule, and any new buses should be required to meet the regulations in effect at the time of manufacture. The bus manufacturer stated that a single-stage bus manufacturer certifying to FMVSS 121 should not be required to undergo additional testing, and adding additional performance tests not consistent with FMVSS 121 could raise suspicions of non-compliance without adding to safety or reliability. The bus manufacturer also expressed concerns that partial testing evaluations could subject a bus model to an undue number of additional tests, particularly when it may impact bus delivery schedules.

B. FTA Response

Because none of the commenters directly responded to FTA's inquiries whether a categorical exemption for certain classes of vehicles and whether a gradual phase-in period was necessary, FTA will proceed with the plan outlined in the NPRM: Every bus model for which a full or partial bus testing contract is signed after the effective date of this final rule will be subject to brake performance and emissions testing, without a phase-in period or exemptions for specific categories of vehicles.

With regard to the suggestion that certification with FMVSS 121 exempt a vehicle from additional brake testing, FTA believes that a simple certification of compliance with FMVSS 121 does not exempt a vehicle from the braking test. Although aware that every vehicle operating on public roads must certify compliance with FMVSS, Congress nevertheless mandated that FTA establish the bus testing program, specifically adding a braking performance test, while giving FTA no statutory authority to exempt vehicles that certified compliance with FMVSS 121 or any other FMVSS requirement. Moreover, FTA's bus testing program consists of actual tests, while FMVSS compliance is met by the signing of a certificate of compliance.

FTA does not believe that the addition of braking performance and emissions testing will unduly delay delivery schedules. Under the existing regulation a bus subject to testing as a new model bus or as a modified model bus must be physically delivered to Altoona and must spend a predictable number of days at the testing facility. The addition of braking and emissions testing would add a maximum of 24 working hours to the time presently required at the test facility. When contrasted to the 60 or more days a heavy-duty model bus would spend at the test facility for a full test, an additional three business days would not significantly delay delivery schedules and perhaps could even be accounted for in a manufacturer's proposed delivery schedule.

4. Partial Testing

Under the current rule, partial testing is permitted when a previously-tested bus model undergoes changes in configuration or components that are expected to produce significantly different data from that previously obtained at the Bus Testing Facility. These partial testing determinations are made on a case-by-case basis, using criteria set forth in the June 28, 1992, final rule that established partial testing (57 FR 33394). FTA sought comment on changes that could trigger partial testing for the brake performance and emissions tests.

A. Comments Received

The only commenter, a large bus manufacturer, did not address FTA's request for substantive comments. This commenter only stated that FTA needed to implement a policy that would provide faster responses to partial testing determinations.

B. FTA Response

Without substantive input from commenters, FTA will continue to make requests for partial testing determinations on a case-by-case basis. To provide additional guidance to purchasers, manufacturers, and vendors, FTA has posted its partial testing guidelines on its bus testing Web site. Manufacturers seeking formal letters of determination must wait for FTA to conduct its case-by-case analysis.

5. Reporting Procedures

FTA sought comment on how to better present data collected from the brake performance and emissions tests in the bus testing reports as well as in the bus testing database. FTA also welcomed comments on how to present more effectively the data from any of the eight test categories.

A. Comments Received

None of the commenters provided comment on this request.

B. FTA Response

FTA will continue using the standard test report procedure, adding braking performance and emissions as additional categories to the test reports. FTA may make changes to the test report format and/or emphasis in the future in order to present bus testing data more clearly and effectively.

Other Changes

6. Service Life Category

FTA sought comments on whether it should maintain its current requirement of allowing manufacturers to determine the useful life category in which their buses would be tested. In addition, FTA asked for comment on whether it should continue to expect grantees to evaluate the bus testing reports carefully to assess whether the bus will in fact adequately meet its service life requirements.

FTA also sought comments on alternative policies for determining the service life category in which a particular bus model would be tested, such as (1) redefining the characteristics of buses in each service life category, and if that approach is taken, what those characteristics should be; (2) requiring manufacturers to request an official determination from FTA of a vehicle's service life category; or (3) providing guidance on the standard useful life based on type of construction but allowing manufacturers to test and sell in higher service life categories if they post a “durability assurance” bond or similar instrument.

A. Comments Received

All three commenters on this subject supported the retention of the current FTA requirement. The manufacturer of large buses stated that it is the purchaser's responsibility to review the test report and determine whether the vehicle is adequate to meet their needs. The trade association and transit operator also supported this approach and added that manufacturers should provide proof to the operator that the bus will meet the standards of the higher service life category. The transit operator proposed additional language that would provide the customer a “durability assurance bond” or similar instrument that would cover the vehicle's advertised useful standard life.

B. FTA Response

Based on the response from commenters, FTA does not believe that altering the current procedures is warranted. Although manufacturers may continue to select the appropriate service life category for testing, FTA believes that well-informed purchasers are the best safeguard—to that point, bus purchasers are advised to seek adequate assurances from the vendor in the form of extended warranties or contractual assurances that the vehicle will meet its advertised service life.

7. Buses That Exceed Weight Limits When Fully Loaded

In the NPRM, FTA made note of the fact that a number of buses tested at the Bus Testing Center have not been tested in their fully loaded condition (i.e., with all seats and standee positions occupied), since doing so would have caused their actual weight to exceed either their gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) or a front or rear gross axle weight rating (GAWR).

FTA noted that the test data might not reflect the actual performance of these buses in real-life service, where operators frequently allow all seats and aisles to be filled without regard to the GVWR or GAWR to avoid leaving passengers behind at a stop. FTA sought comments on the following three approaches for addressing these situations:

1. Require that any tests specified in the test procedures be performed at gross vehicle weight (GVW) on the test track (which is not a public roadway) with all seats and standee positions ballasted, and require any tests specified in the test procedures be performed at seated load weight (SLW) on the test track with all seats ballasted. Although the bus would be overloaded, the test data may be more representative of the conditions the bus will face in actual service. This approach would help to “flag” buses that are not adequately able to withstand the rigors of transit service.

2. Continue the current practice of deleting ballast until the bus is within its GVWR/GAWR, but place a more prominent notice in the bus testing report stating that the bus will exceed its maximum GVWR/GAWR with all passenger positions occupied, and alert readers that the test data may not be representative of the vehicle's actual in-service durability.

3. Decline to test a bus that exceeds its GAWR or GVWR when loaded to full capacity.

A. Comments Received

Three commenters—the large industry trade association, the large transit agency, and the large bus manufacturer—supported continuing with the current practice outlined under Option 2, noting its practicability. The transit operator suggested testing a vehicle at its GVW on the test track, regardless of the vehicle's GVWR. The manufacturers' association supported Option 3, proposing that FTA decline to test any vehicle that exceeded its GVWR.

FTA also received unsolicited suggestions from two commenters, recommending that FTA increase the simulated ballast weight from the currently-used 150 pounds per passenger cited in the new definitions of “gross vehicle weight” and “seated load weight” proposed in the NPRM, to 170 pounds per passenger to reflect the increasing average weight of Americans over the last several decades.

B. FTA Response

FTA finds that declining to test a vehicle whose GVW exceeds its GVWR is impractical, noting that the entire purposes of the bus testing program is to carry out the legislative mission of verifying that the bus can withstand the rigors of regular transit service. Similarly, testing a bus up to its GVWR but no higher, despite the inability to embark the equivalent of a full complement of passengers, is unrealistic and contrary to the intent of Congress in establishing the program. Buses frequently fill every available seat during rush-hour, and commonly allow “crush loads” of standees in the aisle.

Therefore, the final rule will require buses to be ballasted with a fully loaded passenger complement of seated and standee passengers during the gross vehicle weight portion and with all seats filled during the seated load weight portion of the testing. If the vehicle exceeds its GVWR, the bus will be tested in that condition only on the operator's non-public testing facilities unless and until the operator receives an exemption to operate the vehicle on public roads. Data on how a bus performs under full load conditions is essential to the purchaser, to support acquisition decisions, development of preventive maintenance schedules, and budgeting for unscheduled maintenance.

The suggestion to increase the average passenger weight is well taken, and currently, the U.S. Department of Transportation is considering this subject in the context of all modes of transportation: air, surface, and water. It is quite possible the Department will seek to establish higher value for average passenger weight. If so, FTA would initiate a new rulemaking to amend Part 665 accordingly. FTA will consult with the Department on this subject in the very near future.

8. Family of Vehicles

FTA sought comments on whether it would be appropriate to expand its existing “Family of Vehicles” policy to the 7-year or higher service life categories. The existing Family of Vehicles policy is limited to buses in the 4-year and 5-year service life categories only, and allows manufacturers that have tested a complete bus built on one third-party chassis to offer closely-related variants (such as different lengths) of that bus body on the same or different (but similar) mass-produced chassis that has been tested at the Bus Testing Center on any similar bus by any bus manufacturer. FTA sought comments on the desirability and ramifications of extending the Family of Vehicles policy to all buses built on third-party chassis

A. Comments Received

The large industry trade association opposed the proposal, stating that the 4- and 5-year buses are used differently than the larger vehicles, and that such a proposal would increase prices without increasing the quality of the vehicles. The large transit agency also recommended that FTA keep its current requirement, noting that the 4- and 5-year buses are not used in standard transit service.

B. FTA Response

Given the lack of support among commenters for the proposed expansion of the concept, FTA is retaining its Family of Vehicles policy for 4- and 5-year buses and will not expand it to include buses used in higher service life categories.

9. Separate Reporting of Third-Part Chassis Test Results

Although Section 5318 directs that buses are to be tested as an integrated system, FTA's Family of Vehicles policy described in the previous paragraphs would be easier to implement and understand if the Bus Testing Center were able to produce separate testing reports for third-party chassis. These reports could be prepared by identifying, separating out, and summarizing only the chassis-related data during tests of buses built on third-party chassis. The Bus Testing Center operator expressed concern that in past experience, a significant number of buses are tested on modified third-party chassis, and these modifications, even if performed in strict compliance with the manufacturer's guidelines, would frustrate comparisons of data on third-party chassis. Therefore, FTA sought comments on the feasibility of preparing separate test reports for third-party chassis that are tested in the course of testing complete buses built on those chassis. FTA also sought comments on any practical considerations that may need to be addressed or difficulties that may be presented, as well as the best ways to separate and report data on third-party chassis. Finally, FTA sought comments on how the costs of this additional reporting would be borne.

A. Comments Received

FTA received two comments on this proposal—one from the large trade association, another from the large transit agency. The transit agency recommended preparation of separate third-party test reports, with costs to be negotiated between the chassis maker and purchasers. The trade association similarly commented that the costs should be negotiated, but did not address whether separate chassis reports are desirable.

B. FTA Response

Because the design, engineering, and manufacturing, and quality control of third-party chassis are the same regardless of the final customer, there may be little differentiation in test data when a particular third-party chassis is used on similar buses built by multiple bus manufacturers. FTA believes that some of the test data obtained from testing a vehicle using a third-party chassis already can be extrapolated to similar buses built on the same chassis through the partial testing process.

The regulation's existing partial testing provisions permit partial testing of previously tested bus models that are subsequently produced with changes in configuration or components, requiring additional testing only where significant changes in data are expected, including changes in chassis components, such as engines, axles, suspensions, and powertrains. Under these partial testing procedures, if a manufacturer of a fully-tested vehicle wants to offer that same vehicle using a different but already-tested third-party chassis, FTA will require only those tests where significant changes in data are expected—expecting that data intrinsic to the chassis can be extrapolated from the previous bus testing report using that chassis. The current process reduces the costs and testing requirements; however, to increase convenience and clarity for bus purchasers, FTA will continue to explore the feasibility of issuing separate test reports for third-party chassis.

10. FTA Evaluation/Recommendation of Bus Models

In response to a number of informal suggestions received in the past that FTA issue “pass/fail” determinations for buses in the bus testing reports, FTA sought comments in the NPRM on whether the bus testing reports should include a “pass/fail” criterion or a “recommended/not-recommended” determination, and if so, how thresholds for such determinations should be established. Alternatively, FTA sought comments on improved ways to enhance the presentation of data in the reports (e.g., by presenting data graphically) so that information for decision-making is more readily apparent and better informs local decision-making.

A. Comments Received

FTA received two comments on this subject—one from a bus manufacturer, and one from an equipment manufacturers association. The bus manufacturer stated that FTA should not make pass/fail determinations, noting that it should be the customer's prerogative and responsibility. The equipment manufacturer association stated that FTA should establish pass/fail criteria, at least for braking criteria.

B. FTA Response

FTA found the dearth of comments regarding the establishment of pass/fail criteria disappointing, based on pre-rulemaking comments from the presumed beneficiaries of pass/fail criteria, namely, the transit agencies that purchase the vehicles. FTA sought substantive comments on possible criteria and thresholds. In the absence of comments supporting such an approach, FTA will not proceed with establishing pass/fail criteria at this time. FMVSS 121 already includes pass/fail criteria for braking performance, so a separate criterion in the bus testing reports is not necessary and could be confusing.

11. Scope

Paragraph 665.3 is being amended to bring it into statutory conformity. Section 317 of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 initially limited applicability of the bus testing program to recipients of FTA funding under the former sections 3, 9, 16(b)(2), and 18 programs. Paragraph 3023(c) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users amended 49 USC 5318, paragraph (e), to extend the bus testing requirement to all new bus models acquired with funds under 49 USC Chapter 53. The statutory change is not significant, as practically all buses subject to the testing requirements are acquired with funds authorized under one of those four programs.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

All comments received are available for examination in the docket at http://www.regulations.gov. All comments have been fully considered in this final rule.

A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking

This rulemaking is issued under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 5318, as amended by section 3020 of SAFETEA-LU (Pub. L. 109-59).

B. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may have a substantial, direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This final action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, and FTA has determined that this final action will not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant additional consultation. FTA has also determined that this final action will not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional governmental functions.

C. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input from Indian tribal government representatives in the development of rules that “significantly or uniquely affect” Indian communities and that impose “substantial and direct compliance costs” on such communities. FTA has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13175 and believes that this final action will not have substantial, direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and will not preempt tribal laws. Therefore, a tribal impact statement is not required. FTA received no comments on the NPRM from Indian tribal governments.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272: Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and Executive Order 13272, FTA must consider whether a proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. “Small entities” include small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations under 50,000. FTA certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on substantial number of small entities.

E. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

FTA has determined that this action is not considered a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11032). Executive Order 12866 requires agencies to regulate in the “most cost-effective manner,” to make a “reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,” and to develop regulations that “impose the least burden on society.” Although some of the changes made by this rule are statutorily mandated, FTA anticipates that the direct economic impact of this rulemaking will be minimal and has actively sought to minimize the bus testing burden, including the continued availability of partial testing procedures.

This final rule also clarifies existing regulatory requirements that will not adversely affect, in any material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes will not interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency and will not materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

This final rule will not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48). This final rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $128.1 million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532).

G. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects

FTA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use dated May 18, 2001, and determined that this is not a significant energy action under that order, because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no person is required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. This final rule does not propose any new information collection burdens.

I. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

The U.S. DOT assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) 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.

J. Privacy Act

Anyone is able to search the electronic form for all comments received into any of our 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 view the U.S. DOT Privacy Act Statement by visiting http://docketsinfo.dot.gov/ or at 65 FR 19477 (April 11, 2000).

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 665

• Buses
• Grant programs—transportation
• Motor vehicle safety
• Public transportation
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Federal Transit Administration revises 49 CFR part 665 to read as follows:

PART 665—BUS TESTING

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5318 and 49 CFR 1.51.

Subpart A—General

Subpart B—Bus Testing Procedures

Subpart C—Operations