Bus Testing; Calculation of Average Passenger Weight and Test Vehicle Weight |
|---|
Topics: Federal Transit Administration
|
Peter M. Rogoff
Federal Register
March 14, 2011
[Federal Register: March 14, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 49)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 13580-13583]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14mr11-32]
[[Page 13580]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
49 CFR Part 665
[Docket No. FTA-2011-0015]
RIN 2132-AB01
Bus Testing; Calculation of Average Passenger Weight and Test
Vehicle Weight
AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is proposing to amend
its bus testing regulation to more accurately reflect average passenger
weights and actual transit vehicle loads. Specifically, FTA is
proposing to change the average passenger weight from 150 lbs to 175
lbs. In addition, FTA is proposing to change the floor space occupied
per standing passenger from 1.5 to 1.75 square feet, and updating the
Structural Strength and Distortion test procedures.
DATES: Comments must be received no later than May 13, 2011. Late-filed
comments will be considered to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by the agency name and
DOT Docket ID Number FTA-2011-0015) by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information, Gregory
Rymarz, Bus Testing Program Manager, Office of Research, Demonstration,
and Innovation (TRI), (202) 366-6410, gregory.rymarz@dot.gov. For legal
information, Richard Wong, Office of the Chief Counsel (TCC), (202)
366-0675, richard.wong@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is issuing a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to update its bus testing protocols to carry
out the bus testing program authorized at 49 U.S.C. 5318 and
implemented by 49 CFR part 665. On October 5, 2009, FTA published a
Final Rule in the Federal Register (74 FR 51083) that incorporated
brake performance and emissions tests into FTA's bus testing program as
required by 49 U.S.C. 5318, as well as several other non-statutory
changes that will improve the program, including the establishment of
protocols to determine the appropriate loading of vehicles during test
procedures and addressing buses that exceeded weight limits when fully
loaded.
During the comment period leading to the Final Rule, FTA received
two comments outside the scope of the notice recommending that FTA
increase the simulated ballast weight from the proposed 150 lbs per
passenger provided in the definitions of ``gross vehicle weight'' and
``seated load weight'' (the value that had been in use since the
beginning of the program) to an amount that more accurately reflects
the changes to the average weight of Americans over the last several
decades. FTA acknowledged that the suggestion was well taken, but noted
that the establishment of a more accurate average passenger weight was
of Department-wide interest, and committed itself to initiate a new
rulemaking to amend Part 665 only after consultations within the
Department. FTA has consulted within the Department, and as a result of
those consultations, is issuing this NPRM.
In its previous rulemaking action, FTA made note of the fact that a
number of buses tested at the Bus Testing Center had not been tested in
their fully loaded condition (i.e., with all seats and standee
positions occupied) because 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). Instead, buses were
loaded to the maximum weight rating and a notation was made in the
vehicle's final test report.
In its earlier NPRM, FTA noted that the test data might not reflect
the actual performance of these buses in real-life service,
particularly during rush hour when 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 comment on three
possible approaches for addressing this situation: (1) Performing tests
on the test track (which is not a public roadway) with all seats and
standee positions ballasted, (2) deleting ballast until the vehicle
does not exceed its GVWR and noting such fact in the test report (which
had been the policy up to that time), or (3) declining to test a bus
that exceeds its GAWR or GVWR when loaded to full capacity.
FTA determined that declining to test a vehicle whose GVW exceeds
its GVWR is impractical, noting that the entire purpose of the bus
testing program is to carry out the statutory mandate of verifying that
the bus can withstand the rigors of regular transit service, and
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 may not accurately reflect rush-hour operating
conditions when every available seat is filled and drivers commonly
allow ``crush loads'' of standees in the aisle.
Under FTA's revised testing protocol, buses are now 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 because FTA
believes data on how a bus performs under fully loaded conditions is
essential to the purchaser in supporting acquisition decisions,
developing preventive maintenance schedules, and budgeting for
unscheduled maintenance. In addition, purchasing a vehicle appropriate
for actual operating conditions will lessen premature structural
fatigue and assist in avoiding catastrophic failures caused by
overstressed and overworked structural and operational components,
ensuring the availability of such vehicles for passenger service.
This NPRM is based on modern scientific data. FTA's earlier
selection of the 150 pound passenger weight assumption was based on the
number established by FTA's sister DOT mode, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in its calculation of the Gross
Vehicle Weight Rating at 49 CFR 567.4(g)(3). Although NHTSA did not
provide an explanation for this figure in its 1971 rulemaking
documents, NHTSA staff believes their average was based on data derived
from the National Health Examination Survey for 1960-1962. That survey
has been continued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) through the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
(NHANES). In its October 22, 2008, National Health Statistics Report
(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr010.pdf), the CDC's National
Center for Health Statistics calculated a mean average weight of 194.7
pounds for male adults 20 years of age and older, and a median weight
[[Page 13581]]
of 188.8 pounds. For women 20 years of age and older, the CDC
calculated a mean weight of 164.7 pounds, and a median weight of 155.8
pounds.
Based on the suggestions from the commenters and confirmation using
the statistical NHANES data from the CDC, FTA believes that 175 pounds
is an appropriate average weight to assume for testing buses. This is
also within the range of average passenger weights used by other
transportation modes with regulatory authority such as the Federal
Aviation Administration's 190 lb. summer weight and 195 lb. winter
weight passenger weight averages (See, Advisory Circular 120-27E,
``Aircraft Weight and Balance Control,'' June 10, 2005) and the United
States Coast Guard's 185 lb Assumed Average Weight Per Person (See,
``Passenger Weight and Inspected Vessel Stability Requirements: Final
Rule, 75 FR 78064, December 14, 2010).
Because of the increase in passenger weight, FTA is also
commensurately proposing to increase the assumed dimensions for a
standing passenger from 1.5 square feet of free floor space to 1.75
square feet of free floor space to acknowledge the expanding girth of
the average passenger. FTA also seeks comments on this figure.
FTA wishes to emphasize that it is not proposing the increase to
175 pounds in order to ``toughen'' the testing protocol. Rather, this
action is being proposed in order to ensure that the Bus Testing
protocols better reflect the actual loads that buses are already
carrying in service today.
To avoid conflicts with NHTSA's regulatory definition of gross
vehicle weight in 49 CFR part 567 and elsewhere, FTA is proposing to
remove the definition of ``gross weight'' or ``gross vehicle weight''
from the definitions in section 665.5 and inserting a new definition,
``fully loaded weight,'' which incorporates the heavier and wider
dimensions of an average bus rider. FTA is also proposing to amend
Appendix A, Section 5, replacing ``gross weight'' and ``gross vehicle
weight'' with ``full load weight'' when conducting the structural
integrity portions of the test.
Grandfathering
Similar to the approach taken by FTA in the October 2009 Final
Rule, FTA is proposing that the date on which a bus testing contract
was signed will determine the applicability of the new testing
procedures. New bus models for which testing contracts were signed
before the effective date of the final rule and that continue to be
produced without major changes in any structure or systems will not be
required to return to the Bus Testing Center to undergo additional
testing using the new fully loaded weight procedures. Buses required to
undergo full or partial testing after the effective date would be
subjected to the new procedures.
Implementation Period
FTA is proposing to delay the effective date of the final rule for
one year after publication. FTA believes this will give bus
manufacturers adequate time to review the advertised passenger
capacities of their product lines, to identify chassis suitable for the
advertised passenger loads, and if necessary to redesign their vehicles
to reduce passenger capacity and/or accommodate a heavier-duty chassis.
FTA seeks comment regarding the adequacy of the phase-in period.
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking
This rulemaking is issued under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 5318 and
49 U.S.C. 1.51.
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 action has been analyzed in
accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive
Order 13132, and FTA has determined that this action will not have
sufficient federalism implications to warrant additional consultation.
FTA has also determined that this 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 action under Executive Order
13175 and believes that this 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.
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 does not expect this action will have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
E. Executive Orders 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.''
Consistent with Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011),
FTA has assessed the benefits of the NPRM against potential costs, has
attempted to minimize any potential economic burdens, has based its
determination on modern scientific data, and provides flexibility and
freedom of choice for the affected entities.
The bus testing program itself is statutorily mandated and cannot
be eliminated as a means of minimizing an economic burden. Under 49
U.S.C. 5318, FTA funds may not be used to acquire a new bus until a bus
of that model has completed testing at a statutorily prescribed
facility, with approximately 15 to 20 new bus models completing testing
every year. These buses are tested in 4-, 5-, 7-, 10-, or 12-year
service life categories as set forth in 49 CFR 665.11(e). In preparing
this NPRM, FTA reviewed the data from ten recent test reports and found
that one of the buses exceeded their GVWR at their seated load weight
using either the 150 pound figure or the 175 pound figure. When tested
at the gross vehicle load, i.e., carrying a full complement of
[[Page 13582]]
seated and standing passengers, five bus models would have exceeded
their GVWR using the 150 pound figure, with two more exceeding the GVWR
using the 175 pound figure.
Testing buses using the 175 pound figure will not result in any
mandatory additional costs on transit vehicle manufactures or the
public transit operators that purchase such vehicles. Rather, FTA is
attempting to modify its testing procedures to more accurately reflect
a bus model's expected usage based on demonstrable scientific data,
namely, the 2008 CDC Report and the most recent bus testing reports.
In addition to providing more accurate test data to assist buyers
of public transit vehicles, the NPRM attempts to maximize flexibility
and freedom of choice for transit operators who may refuse to carry
standees to avoid exceeding a vehicle's GVWR now that the vehicle's
carrying capacity has been identified in a test report, buyers may
order vehicles with more durable components, or purchase a lighter-duty
vehicle if they do not expect to carry capacity passenger loads.
Transit vehicle manufactures similarly have the flexibility and freedom
of choice to continue using the same components to meet buyers' needs,
or they may choose to upgrade individual components, such as chassis,
wheels, tires, brakes, or suspensions.
For those manufacturers that choose to upgrade their buses to a
more robust configuration, FTA estimates the cost of upgrading a
vehicle's components could be as low as $2,500 per vehicle in the 4- to
5-year paratransit-type vehicle categories, between $5,000 and $7,000
in the minibus categories, to as high as $25,000 per vehicle in the 10-
to 12-year full-size bus categories. But as noted above, any necessary
upgrades are not mandated by the NPRM, but rather, would be negotiated
between the buyer and the manufacturer. FTA notes that any cost
increase due to a decision to upgrade components would be offset by
FTA's financial assistance program which covers at least 80% of a
vehicle's capital costs, minimizing any economic impact of this
rulemaking on public transit vehicles manufacturers and their
customers.
This NPRM's benefits outweigh potential costs because the new
testing protocol will allow transit agencies to more accurately
identify vehicles that are more likely to meet service life
expectations, advertised passenger capacities, and actual loading
conditions. The acquisition of sturdier vehicles will decrease
maintenance and replacement costs, ensure that vehicles meet their
anticipated service lives, and thereby enhance the availability and
reliability of transit vehicles for the riding public.
Although the result of this proposed rule may have the effect of
encouraging transit agencies to modify their specifications on future
procurements to reflect projected passenger loads or transit vehicle
manufacturers to upgrade vehicle components to more accurately reflect
advertised service loads, this proposed new testing procedure rule will
affect only data collected for those vehicles procured with FTA
financial assistance and will not directly affect vehicles acquired
using private funds or funds from Federal agencies other than FTA,
although non-FTA purchasers are likely to be indirect beneficiaries
through reviewing the publicly-available bus testing reports prior to
purchasing their vehicles and if vehicle manufacturers decide to use
the FTA bus testing results as a basis to upgrade components across
their full product line.
This action is not expected to adversely affect 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 action will not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48).
This action 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 action 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.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, 49 CFR part
665 is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 665--BUS TESTING
1. The authority citation for part 665 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5318 and 49 CFR 1.51.
2. Amend Sec. 665.5 as follows:
a. By removing the definition for Gross weight, also gross vehicle
weight;
b. In the definition of ``Seated load weight'' by removing ``150
pounds of ballast'' and adding in its place ``175 pounds of ballast'';
and
c. By adding a definition for Fully loaded weight.
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 665.5 Definitions.
* * * * *
Fully loaded weight means the curb weight of the bus plus
passengers simulated by adding 175 pounds of ballast to each seating
position and 175 pounds for each standing position (assumed to be each
1.75 square foot of free floor space).
* * * * *
3. Amend Appendix A to part 665 by revising the introductory text
and paragraphs a.(1) and (2) of section 5 to read as follows:
[[Page 13583]]
Appendix A to Part 665--Tests To Be Performed at the Bus Testing
Facility
* * * * *
5. Structural Integrity
Two complementary structural integrity tests should be
performed. Structural strength and distortion tests should be
performed at the Bus Testing Center, and the structural durability
test should be performed at the test track.
a. Structural Strength and Distortion Tests
(1) A shakedown of the bus structure should be conducted by
loading and unloading the bus with a distributed load equal to 2.5
times the fully loaded weight. The bus should then be unloaded and
inspected for any permanent deformation on the floor or coach
structure. This test should be repeated a second time, and should be
repeated up to one more time if the permanent deflections vary
significantly between the first and second tests.
(2) The bus should be loaded to its fully loaded weight, with
one wheel on top of a curb and then in a pothole. This test should
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 should be
conducted in each suspension travel condition.
* * * * *
Issued on: March 8, 2011.
Peter M. Rogoff,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-5831 Filed 3-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-P