[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43040-43041]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19403]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2006-0028]

MET Laboratories, Inc.: Grant of Expansion of Recognition and
Update to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces its final decision to expand
the scope of recognition for MET Laboratories, Inc., as a Nationally
Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL). Additionally, OSHA announces its
final decision to add two new test standards to the NRTL Program's List
of Appropriate Test Standards.

DATES: The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on
September 13, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, telephone:
(202) 693-2110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>OSHA's Web page includes
information about the NRTL Program (see http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Notice of Final Decision

    OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of
recognition of MET Laboratories, Inc. (MET) as a NRTL. MET's expansion
covers the addition of three test standards to its scope of
recognition.
    OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an
acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety
testing and certification of the specific products covered within its
scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government
authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products
properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require
testing and certification of the products.
    The Agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial
recognition, or for expansion or renewal of this recognition, following
requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires
that the Agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in
processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the
application and provides its preliminary finding and, in the second
notice, the Agency provides its final decision on the application.
These notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or
modifications of that scope. OSHA maintains an informational Web page
for each NRTL that details its scope of recognition. These pages are
available from the Agency's Web site at: http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    MET submitted three applications, dated October 15, 2015 (OSHA-
2006-0028-0031), March 2, 2016 (OSHA-2006-0028-0032), and March 18,
2016 (OSHA-2006-0028-0033), to expand its recognition to include three
additional test standards, including two test standards to be added to
the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards. OSHA staff
performed a detailed analysis of the application packets and reviewed
other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews
in relation to these applications.
    OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing MET's expansion
applications in the Federal Register on June 1, 2017 (82 FR 25338). The
Agency requested comments by June 16, 2017, but it received no comments
in response to this notice. OSHA now is proceeding with this final
notice to grant expansion of MET's scope of recognition.
    To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to
MET's application, go to: www.regulations.gov or contact the Docket
Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department
of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3508, Washington, DC
20210. Docket No. OSHA-2006-0028 contains all materials in the record
concerning MET's recognition.

II. Final Decision and Order

    OSHA staff examined MET's expansion applications, its capability to
meet the requirements of the test standards, and other pertinent
information. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that MET
meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its
recognition, subject to the limitation and conditions listed below.
OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant MET's
scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of MET's recognition to
testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance
to the test standards listed in Table 1 below.
    Additionally, Table 2, below, lists the test standards new to the
NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards. The Agency evaluated
the standards to (1) verify they represent product categories for which
OSHA requires certification by a NRTL, (2) verify the documents
represent end products and not components, and (3) verify the documents
define safety test specifications (not installation or operational
performance specifications). Based on this evaluation, OSHA finds that
they are appropriate test standards and has added these standards to
the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards.

 Table 1--List of Appropriate Test Standards for Inclusion in MET's NRTL
                          Scope of Recognition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Test standard                     Test standard title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 2108...........................  Standard for Low Voltage Lighting
                                     Systems.
UL 61010-2-91*....................  Standard for Safety Requirements for
                                     Electrical Equipment for
                                     Measurement, Control, and
                                     Laboratory Use--Part 2-091:
                                     Particular Requirements for Cabinet
                                     X-Ray Systems.

UL 61010-2-81*....................  Standard for Safety Requirements for
                                     Electrical Equipment for
                                     Measurement, Control, and
                                     Laboratory Use--Part 2-081:
                                     Particular Requirements for
                                     Automatic and Semi-Automatic
                                     Laboratory Equipment for Analysis
                                     and Other Purposes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents a new standard that OSHA is adding to the NRTL Program's
  List of Appropriate Test Standards, as specified in Table 2 below.

   Table 2--Test Standard OSHA Is Adding to the NRTL Program's List of
                       Appropriate Test Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Test standard                     Test standard title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 61010-2-91.....................  Standard for Safety Requirements for
                                     Electrical Equipment for
                                     Measurement, Control and Laboratory
                                     Use--Part 2-091: Particular
                                     Requirements for Cabinet X-Ray
                                     Systems.
UL 61010-2-81.....................  Standard for Safety Requirements for
                                     Electrical Equipment for
                                     Measurement, Control and Laboratory
                                     Use--Part 2-081: Particular
                                     Requirements for Automatic and Semi-
                                     Automatic Laboratory Equipment for
                                     Analysis and Other Purposes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is
limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require
third-party testing and certification before using them in the
workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products
for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, a
NRTL's scope of recognition does not include these products.
    The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) may approve the
test standards listed above as American National Standards. However,
for convenience, we may use the designation of the standards-developing
organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under
the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL 1-0.3, Appendix C,
paragraph XIV), any NRTL recognized for a particular test standard may
use either the proprietary version of the test standard or the ANSI
version of that standard. Contact ANSI to determine whether a test
standard is currently ANSI-approved.

A. Conditions

    In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7,
MET must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
    1. MET must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any
change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major
change in its operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the
change(s);
    2. MET must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with
all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
    3. MET must continue to meet the requirements for recognition,
including all previously published conditions on MET's scope of
recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
    Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the
scope of recognition of MET, subject to the limitation and conditions
specified above.

III. Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210,
authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is
issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of
Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR
1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on August 30, 2017.
Loren Sweatt,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2017-19403 Filed 9-12-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 22 (Friday, February 1, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 1119]
[FR Doc No: 2019-00664]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9043-2]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or https://www.epa.gov/ nepa/.

Receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 12/21/2018 Through 01/25/2019
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20180325, Final, USFS, WA, Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels
Management, Review Period Ends: 03/04/2019, Contact: Johnny Collin 509-
843-4643
EIS No. 20180326, Draft Supplement, BR, CA, Long-Term Water Transfers,
Comment Period Ends: 03/18/2019, Contact: Dan Cordova<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20180327, Final, TxDOT, TX, Oakhill Parkway, Contact: Carlos
Swonke<PHONE_NUMBER>

    Under 23 U.S.C. 139(n)(2), TxDOT has issued a single document that
consists of a supplemental final environmental impact statement and
record of decision. Therefore, the 30-day wait/review period under NEPA
does not apply to this action.

EIS No. 20180328, Draft, HUD, CT, Resilient Bridgeport, Comment Period
Ends: 03/18/2019, Contact: Rebecca French<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20180329, Draft, USACE, CA, Amoruso Ranch, Comment Period Ends:
03/18/2019, Contact: Leah M. Fisher<PHONE_NUMBER>
    EIS No. 20180330, Draft, FHWA, LA, Lafayette Regional Xpressway
Tier 1, Comment Period Ends: 03/18/2019, Contact: Todd Jeter 225-757-
7612
EIS No. 20180331, Final, FERC, LA, Driftwood LNG Project, Review Period
Ends: 03/04/2019, Contact: Office of External Affairs<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20180332, Final, FERC, CA, Yuba River Development Project,
Review Period Ends: 03/04/2019, Contact: Alan Mitchnick<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20180333, Final, FERC, OR, Swan Lake North Pumped Storage
Project, Review Period Ends: 03/04/2019, Contact: Office of External
Affairs<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20180334, Final, FERC, NY, Northeast Supply Enhancement
Project, Review Period Ends: 03/04/2019, Contact: Office of External
Affairs<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20180335, Draft Supplement, USN, GU, Mariana Islands Training
and Testing Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas
Environmental Impact Statement, Comment Period Ends: 03/18/2019,
Contact: Nora Macariola-See<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20180336, Draft, FHWA, NY, Van Wyck Expressway Capacity and
Access Improvements to JFK Airport, Comment Period Ends: 03/18/2019,
Contact: Hans Anker<PHONE_NUMBER>

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20180282, Final, USACE, IL, The Great Lakes and Mississippi
River Interbasin Study--Brandon Road Integrated Feasibility Study and
Environmental Impact Statement--Will County, Illinois, Review Period
Ends: 02/22/2019, Contact: Andrew Leichty<PHONE_NUMBER>. Revision to FR
Notice Published 12/21/2018; Extending the Comment Period from 01/07/
2019 to 02/22/2019.

    Dated: January 29, 2019.
Robert Tomiak,
Director, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2019-00664 Filed 1-31-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51017-51018]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20892]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP11-527-000]

ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on August 2, 2010, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR), 717
Texas Street, Houston, Texas 77002, filed in Docket No. CP11-527-000, a
request for abandonment authority, pursuant to 18 CFR part 157 and
section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act, to abandon transportation of
service through certain natural gas facilities located offshore Texas.
Specifically, ANR proposes to abandon its present and future obligation
to provide transportation service through approximately 7.5 miles of
20-inch pipeline from the producer platform located in High Island
Block A-571 to a sub-sea connection in the High Island Offshore System
in High Island Block A-546. ANR states that the proposed abandonment
will not reduce the capacity that is currently available to the current
shipper, all as more fully set forth in the application, which is on
file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may
also be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the

last three digits in the docket number field to access the document.
For assistance, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call
toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Rene
Staeb, Manager, Project Determinations & Regulatory Administration, ANR
Pipeline Company, 717 Texas Street, Houston, Texas 77002, telephone no.
(832) 320-5212, facsimile no.<PHONE_NUMBER>, and e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 7 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission
and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: August 31, 2011.

    Dated: August 10, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-20892 Filed 8-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


inch) diagonally offset pattern) MCI E/J-Series glazing with the
thicker 1.52 (0.06 inches). We observe that a 100 percent increase in
the PVB interlayer thickness only resulted in a 14 percent reduction of
average impactor displacement.

VIII. Other Proposed Requirements

    Other requirements are also proposed for emergency exit latches and
other related release mechanisms.

a. Latch Protrusions

    NHTSA proposes to amend FMVSS No. 217 to specify that emergency
exit latches and other related release mechanisms not protrude more
than 25 mm (1 inch) into the opening of an emergency exit when the
window is opened as described in S5.4.1 of the standard (when the
window is opened to the minimum emergency egress opening (allowing
passage of an ellipsoid 500 mm (19.7 inches) wide by 300 mm (11.8
inches) high)).
    This requirement would respond to Recommendation No. H-11-37 of the
NTSB, supra, which NTSB issued after investigating an August 5, 2010
multi-vehicle collision school bus crash in Grey Summit, Missouri, in
which egress from emergency windows was hindered by protruding
latches.\62\ H-11-37 states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Several passengers in the lead school bus, and a witness
who assisted in the evacuation, stated in post-crash interviews that
emergency egress was hindered by the design of the emergency exit
window. Particularly, the 102 mm (4 inch) by 76.2 mm (3 inch)
emergency release latch plate for the emergency exit window was
elevated about 25.4 mm (1 inch) from the window base and snagged the
clothing of several passengers as they were exiting through the
window opening.

Modify FMVSS No. 217 or the corresponding laboratory test procedure
to eliminate the potential for objects such as latch plates to
protrude into the emergency exit window opening space even when the
protrusion still allows the exit window to meet the opening size
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
requirements.

    We seek comment on what an appropriate maximum latch protrusion
might be. The MCI E/J and Van Hool latches (both production and
countermeasure designs) met the proposed 25 mm (1 inch) height
protrusion limit, while the Prevost latch (both production and
countermeasure design) did not.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Although the striker posts on the MCI E/J latch protrude
less than 25.4 mm (1 inch) into the emergency exit opening, the MCI
E/J latching system also includes the guide cams (Figure 43) which
protrude more than 25.4 mm (1 inch) into the emergency exit opening.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The maximum latch plate protrusion requirement would be applicable
to the buses to which the impactor tests would apply.\64\ This NPRM's
proposed impact

tests on the glazing would require emergency exit latches to be
sufficiently strong to pass the proposed dynamic impactor test
requirements at the near latch (and even center of daylight opening)
impact. The latch plates on those buses would likely need to be
redesigned to meet the proposed dynamic impact requirements, so new
designs for latch plates that do not protrude past the allowable limit
can be readily incorporated into manufacturers' redesigns at the same
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ New OTRBs (except school buses) and all new non-OTRBs with
a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) that are not transit
buses, school buses or perimeter seating buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, NHTSA is also proposing to extend the maximum latch plate
protrusion requirement to other buses as well. NTSB recommendation H-
11-37 was issued as a result of a school bus crash. Thus, NHTSA is
proposing to extend the proposed requirement to school buses also. In
addition, since this proposal of limiting the size of emergency exit
latch plate protrusions is intended to mitigate hindrance from the
window latches during emergency egress, we request comment on the
merits of requiring all buses to which FMVSS No. 217 applies to meet
the requirement. Such a requirement could enhance emergency egress from
all buses.

b. Latch Workable After Impact

    The NPRM proposes to require that latches be functional in
accordance to the emergency egress requirements of FMVSS No. 217
following the impact tests. This requirement is intended to increase
the likelihood that, after a rollover event, all emergency exits are
operable to enable bus occupants to egress out of the bus. Requiring
emergency windows to remain operable after the impact test would
increase the likelihood that these windows are operable in real world
rollover events where occupants may load the window before the bus
comes to rest. A similar requirement was also proposed in the August 6,
2014 NPRM for FMVSS No. 227, ``Bus rollover structural integrity,''
where the emergency exits are required to remain shut during the bus
rollover test and be operable in the manner required under FMVSS No.
217 after the test.

IX. Applicability

    NHTSA proposes to apply the proposed dynamic impact test
requirements to generally the same group of vehicles that would be
covered by the structural integrity NPRM.\65\ We have tentatively
concluded that both rulemakings would apply to high-occupancy vehicles
associated with unreasonable risk of fatal rollover involvement, and
that these vehicles are generally buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793
kg (26,000 lb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ 79 FR 46090 (August 6, 2014), supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The buses that would be covered would be (a) new OTRBs (regardless
of GVWR), pursuant to the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of MAP-21, and
(b) all new buses other than OTRBs, with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg
(26,000 lb).\66\ The reasons for this two-prong approach towards
determining applicability are discussed in detail in the structural
integrity NPRM, supra. See 49 FR at 46102-46105. The approach would be
to cover all of the buses covered by MAP-21 and all of the buses with
similar safety risks as the buses covered under MAP-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Transit buses, school buses, and perimeter-seating buses
would be excluded from the standard under this latter category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our proposed applicability of this NPRM also reflects a holistic
approach toward adopting anti-ejection safety countermeasures for
unbelted passengers. NHTSA's strategy has been first to seek
improvements to the rollover structural integrity of motorcoaches (roof
strength and crush resistance) and then to pursue measures that would
drive use of advanced glazing. This ordered approach is based on
findings from the Martec study that the integrity of the bus structure
has a profound impact on the effectiveness of the glazing. That is, in
the absence of a threshold of requisite performance for bus structural
integrity, a twisting motion of a bus in a rollover could simply pop
out any advanced glazing used in the windows and negate the potential
benefits of the glazing.
    Thus, to better ensure that the full benefits of anti-ejection
countermeasures such as advanced glazing would be realized, we first
focused on improving bus structural integrity and the strength of side
window mountings by way of the large bus structural integrity NPRM.
Improvements to the bus structure would increase the likelihood that
bus glazing will be retained in their mountings in a rollover. Next in
our strategy is issuance of today's NPRM, which has performance
requirements that would increase use of advanced glazing that prevent
partial or complete ejection of motorcoach passengers and further
ensure the integrity of glazing mounting. Since today's NPRM builds on
the 2014 rollover structural integrity NPRM, we propose to apply
today's dynamic impact test to the vehicles subject to the 2014 NPRM.
    However, prison buses were among the buses to which NHTSA proposed
applying the structural integrity requirements. We have tentatively
determined that an advanced glazing standard would not be appropriate
for prison buses since these buses typically have bars over the
windows. The bars would impede the impactor. FMVSS No. 217 currently
does not apply to ``buses manufactured for the purpose of transporting
persons under physical restraint'' (S3).
    Further, note that today's NPRM proposes requirements limiting how
far emergency exit latches may protrude into the exit space. We propose
applying the requirement to the buses to which NHTSA proposed would be
subject to the 2014 rollover structural integrity NPRM, and also to
school buses. In addition, we are considering applying the proposed
maximum emergency exit latch protrusion requirements to all buses
governed under FMVSS No. 217. We believe that vehicles would not need
to have their roofs and side structure improved to meet the latch
protrusion requirements. Comments are requested on this issue.

X. Retrofitting

    The Secretary of Transportation has authority to promulgate safety
standards for ``commercial motor vehicles and equipment subsequent to
initial manufacture.'' \67\ The Office of the Secretary has delegated
authority to NHTSA to ``promulgate safety standards for commercial
motor vehicles and equipment subsequent to initial manufacture when the
standards are based upon and similar to a [FMVSS] promulgated, either
simultaneously or previously, under chapter 301 of title 49, U.S.C.''
\68\ Further, section 32703(e)(2) of MAP-21 states that the ``Secretary
may assess the feasibility, benefits, and costs with respect to the
application of any requirement established under subsection . . .
(b)(2) to motorcoaches manufactured before the date on which the
requirement applies to new motorcoaches . . .'' \69\ NHTSA has issued
this NPRM under subsection (b)(2), which directs the agency to consider
advanced glazing standards for each motorcoach portal and consider
other portal improvements

to prevent partial and complete ejection of motorcoach passengers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Under sec. 101(f) of Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act
of 1999 (Public Law 106-159; Dec. 9, 1999).
    \68\ See 49 CFR 1.95(c). Additionally, the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration (FMCSA) is authorized to enforce the safety
standards applicable to commercial vehicles operating in the U.S.
    \69\ See Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act,
Public Law 112-141, sec. 32703(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency has designed our approach toward adopting anti-ejection
safety countermeasures for unbelted passengers to first force
improvements to the rollover structural integrity of motorcoaches (roof
strength and crush resistance) and then to pursue measures that would
drive use of advanced glazing. This ordered approach is based on
findings from the Martec study that the integrity of the bus structure
has a profound impact on the effectiveness of the glazing. That is, in
the absence of a threshold of requisite performance for bus structural
integrity, a twisting motion of a bus in a rollover could simply pop
out any advanced glazing used in the windows and negate the potential
benefits of the glazing. Thus, NHTSA has tentatively decided that it
would not be sensible to apply the requirements proposed today to buses
that do not have sufficient structural integrity to retain the advanced
glazing in a rollover.
    In the proposal for improved structural integrity of motorcoaches
and other large buses, NHTSA sought comment on the retrofitting issue,
while tentatively concluding that requiring retrofitting of existing
buses appears impracticable. The agency discussed its tentative
determination that, based on NHTSA's testing of the MY 1991 Prevost and
the MY 1992 MCI buses, it appears that major structural changes to the
vehicle's entire sidewall and roof structure would be needed for some
existing buses to meet the proposed requirements. We discussed concerns
that such extensive modifications may not be possible on all existing
vehicles that would be covered by the proposed rollover structural
integrity rule. In addition, we stated that the structural changes that
would be entailed--assuming they could be done--would likely have
significant cost impacts, and possibly have a substantial impact on a
significant number of small entities (e.g., owner-operators of large
buses used for transport).
    If NHTSA decides not to require buses to be retrofitted to meet
rollover structural integrity requirements, then a retrofit requirement
for advanced glazing appears unwarranted. Without measures to prevent
the glazing from popping out in a rollover, the anti-ejection benefits
may not be achieved. Yet, Congress was particularly interested in a
possible retrofit requirement for advanced glazing and we would like to
learn more about the issue. We request comments on the feasibility,
benefits, and costs of any potential requirement to retrofit existing
buses with advanced glazing.
    Thus, the agency seeks information on the technical and economic
feasibility of a potential retrofit requirement. Which requirements in
today's proposal could be appropriately applied to used buses? Is the
agency's view reasonable that the benefits of advanced glazing might
not be achieved if the bus's structure were not also upgraded to ensure
the glazing stays in place in a rollover? What potential test
procedures could the agency utilize to objectively measure compliance?
Would it be reasonable to assess compliance with a retrofit requirement
by means of only visually inspecting the vehicle? What lead time and
phase-in issues should the agency consider for a potential retrofit
requirement? What would the potential costs be?

XI. Lead Time

    If the proposed changes in this NPRM were made final, NHTSA is
proposing a compliance date of three years after publication of a final
rule. MAP-21 (in section 32703(e)) directs the agency to apply
regulations prescribed in accordance with section 32703(b) ``to all
motorcoaches manufactured more than 3 years after the date on which the
regulation is published as a final rule.'' Based on the VRTC research,
we believe that some manufacturers would need to redesign their
emergency exit latch systems or adopt a design that would meet the
proposed requirements. Also, manufacturers would also have to
transition from double-glazed tempered/tempered windows to one that has
at least one layer of laminated glass or advanced glazing that can meet
all the proposed requirements. We have tentatively determined that a 3-
year lead time after publication of a final rule is appropriate as some
design, testing, and development will be necessary to certify
compliance to the new requirements.
    The rollover structural integrity NPRM has proposed a compliance
date of 3 years after publication of a final rule.\70\ Similarly, we
are proposing a compliance date of 3 years after publication of the
final rule for this advanced glazing rulemaking. Alternatively, since
this advanced glazing rulemaking and the structural integrity
rulemaking are interrelated, and since the two rulemakings have been
developed fairly close to each other in time, we are also considering
the merits of making the compliance date of the two rulemakings the
same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ 79 FR at 46113 (August 6, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also propose that, to enable manufacturers to certify to the new
requirements as early as possible, optional early compliance with the
standard would be permitted.

XII. Additional MAP-21 Considerations

    MAP-21 directs that any regulation prescribed under section
32703(b), which includes this NPRM, to take into account potential
impacts on seating capacity, on the size/weight of motorcoaches, and to
be based on the best available science.\71\ Further, MAP-21 directs the
agency to consider combining the various motorcoach rulemakings
contemplated by MAP-21 and to avoid duplicative benefits, costs, and
countermeasures.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act,
Public Law 112-141, sec. 32703(e)(1)(B).
    \72\ See id. at sec. 32706(b) and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA does not believe that the requirements proposed in today's
NPRM would result in a loss of seating capacity. We estimate that the
material and design changes resulting from this rulemaking would be a
transition, for some side windows, from a double-glazed tempered/
tempered configuration to a single-glazed laminated configuration, and
relatively simple changes to latch designs that would enable latches to
stay closed when subjected to a nearby impact. Design changes would
also be made to latches so that they do not protrude more than 25 mm (1
inch) into the opening of an emergency exit when the window is open. We
do not expect these material and design changes to result in a loss of
seating capacity. The agency requests comment on this issue.
    There could be potential impacts from this rulemaking on the weight
of motorcoaches, but we believe there would be a potential weight
decrease (and thus a potential cost savings due to decreased fuel
consumption). As discussed in the next section, the transition from a
double-glazed tempered/tempered configuration to a single-glazed
laminated configuration could save an estimated 23-33 pounds per window
(276-396 pounds per bus), thereby increasing the overall fuel economy
during the lifetime of these buses. In the accompanying PRE, we have
attempted to quantify and account for this potential cost savings in
our cost-benefit analysis of the rule. Comments are requested on this
issue.
    NHTSA has considered the best available science in developing
today's NPRM. We discuss in the section on ``Research,'' supra, the
studies on which this NPRM is based. In that section, we discuss the
findings from the joint NHTSA and Transport Canada

motorcoach program (the Martec Study), NHTSA's motorcoach side glazing
retention research, and NHTSA's large bus rollover structural integrity
research program. We discuss how we used those findings to develop this
NPRM.
    Ejections are a large part of the safety problem in crashes of
motorcoaches and other large buses, particularly in rollovers. To
mitigate ejections, NHTSA has adopted a final rule to require passenger
seat belts, and has proposed today's NPRM on advanced glazing to reduce
full ejections of unbelted passengers and partial ejections of belted
and unbelted occupants. Consistent with MAP-21, the agency has taken a
holistic approach toward adopting anti-ejection safety countermeasures
for unbelted passengers, by first seeking improvements to the rollover
structural integrity of motorcoaches (roof strength and crush
resistance) and then pursuing measures that would drive use of advanced
glazing, while making sure to avoid duplicative benefits, costs and
countermeasures. NHTSA tentatively believes that the proposed
structural integrity test (based on ECE R.66) can be used not only to
evaluate the structural integrity of a large bus in maintaining the
occupant compartment but also to evaluate the strength of its
structural integrity in supporting side window glazing retention. Thus,
the agency has fashioned the two rulemakings to complement each other
to achieve portal improvements in preventing partial and complete
ejection of motorcoach passengers.
    NHTSA believes it avoided the duplication of benefits, costs, and
countermeasures of other potential NHTSA rules being considered
pursuant to MAP-21.\73\ There is no regulation that adequately
addresses window retention or ejection mitigation through glazing under
dynamic occupant loading in rollovers. The proposed FMVSS No. 227
requirements for bus structural integrity would require that windows
(on the non-roll side) remain intact in their framing during the
quarter turn, do not open up during the quarter turn, and have no
openings large enough to admit passage of a 102 mm (4 inch) diameter
sphere after the quarter turn. However, the forces that would be
experienced by the windows in the proposed FMVSS No. 227 test are
purely inertial and are not representative of any direct occupant
loading from within the bus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ As we further discuss in the next section and in the PRE
for today's NPRM, we have adjusted the target population based on
the projected benefits that would be attributable to other NHTSA
rulemakings for the subject buses. Separately, we also considered
whether there have been any recent FMCSA actions which might affect
the projected target population and we have tentatively concluded
that they would not. FMCSA has issued several final rules directed
at bus and truck safety, including Medical Certificate Requirements
as Part of the Commercial Driver's License in 2008, Drivers of
Commercial Vehicles: Restricting the Use of Cellular Phones in 2011,
Hours of Service in 2011, and National Registry of Certified Medical
Examiners in 2012. In addition, FMCSA has had several recent
enforcement efforts to improve bus safety, including several
nationwide ``Strike Force'' enforcement events. NHTSA believes that
the benefits estimated in this NPRM would not overlap with the
benefits attained by FMCSA actions associated with bus safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our seat belt requirement mitigates the risk of ejection of
passengers on motorcoaches and other large buses, but seat belt usage
rates by occupants of these vehicles are uncertain. In addition, even
if occupants are belted, there are risks associated with partial
ejections. Advanced glazing in window openings and improved mountings
would mitigate the risk of ejection of occupants who may not be
restrained at the time of the crash, and would help protect against
partial ejections of both restrained and unrestrained occupants.
Today's NPRM proposes requirements that would result in portal
improvements by way of advanced glazing, consistent with the goals of
the Motorcoach Safety Enhancement Act of MAP-21.

XIII. Overview of Benefits and Costs

    A detailed discussion of the benefits and costs estimates may be
found in the PRE for this NPRM.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ The PRE discusses issues relating to the potential costs,
benefits and other impacts of this regulatory action. The PRE is
available in the docket for this NPRM and may be obtained by
downloading it or by contacting Docket Management at the address or
telephone number provided at the beginning of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Target Population

    Figure 4 below shows the annual fatal target population in OTRB and
certain large bus rollovers and estimated lives saved from various bus
rulemakings. The overall fatal target population in OTRB and certain
large bus rollovers is 14.7 fatalities annually. ESC equipment on the
subject buses reduces the chance of a rollover, and is estimated to
prevent 1.47 fatalities annually. The resulting overall fatal target
population in the subject OTRBs and other buses, with ESC, is 13.23
fatalities annually.
    In the 2013 seat belt final rule and the structural integrity NPRM,
NHTSA estimated that seat belt use rates would range from 15 percent to
84 percent and that the effectiveness of seat belts in rollover crashes
is 77 percent. Therefore, the seat belt final rule would save 1.45
lives at 15 percent belt use rate and 8.1 lives at 84 percent belt use
rate and thereby reducing the fatal target population in the subject
buses to 11.78 and 5.13 fatalities annually, respectively. For the 15
percent seat belt use rate, the fatal population is broken down to 0.78
restrained occupant fatalities and 11.0 unrestrained occupant
fatalities. Likewise, for the 84 percent seat belt use rate, the fatal
population is broken down to 2.77 restrained occupant fatalities and
2.36 unrestrained occupant fatalities. Each restrained and unrestrained
population is further broken down to subpopulations of ejected and non-
ejected fatalities (see Figure 4).

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY16.040

    The agency estimates in the rollover structural integrity PRE a 71
percent effectiveness of ejection mitigation in preventing fatalities.
The rollover structural integrity PRE further estimates that, since the
enhanced rollover structural integrity test procedure does not include
a condition simulating occupant loading, NHTSA would estimate a
midpoint effectiveness of 35 percent for unbelted ejected fatalities.
That is, that effectiveness would result from just the windows being
retained in their surrounding structures due to the rollover structural
integrity requirements. Due to today's proposed requirements, advanced
glazing and secure bonding techniques would be used that withstand
occupant loading. Accordingly, we estimate that the remainder of the
overall 71 percent effectiveness for the ejected fatal population is
accounted for with today's NPRM (36 percent effectiveness). Based on
the various rollover tests on buses performed by the agency, we
determined that advanced glazing is effective in one and two quarter
turn rollovers. Evaluating the various bus rollover crashes that have
occurred in the real world, we estimated that 58 percent of large bus
rollover crashes are one and two quarter turns. Therefore, the overall
effectiveness of advanced glazing for all large bus rollover crashes is
approximately 21 percent (58 percent of 36 percent effectiveness).
    The target population (unrestrained ejected occupants in rollover
crashes) estimated for this proposal, after discounting the benefits
from the other initiatives applicable to the same group of buses (ESC,
seat belts, rollover structural integrity) is 7.37 fatalities at the 15
percent seat belt use rate and 1.58 fatalities at the 84 percent seat
belt use rate.

Benefits

    Applying a 21 percent effectiveness of enhanced window retention,
we estimate this proposal to save 1.54 (= 7.37 x 0.209) lives annually
at the 15 percent seat belt use rate and 0.33 (= 1.58 x 0.209) lives
annually at the 84 percent seat belt use rate.
    Assuming that the proposed glazing and window retention
requirements are only effective in one and two quarter turn bus
rollover events in preventing serious and critical injuries to bus
passengers, we estimated that 0.4 and 0.08 serious to critical injuries
would be prevented for a 15 percent and 84 percent belt use rate,
respectively. Therefore the equivalent lives saved by the proposed
requirements are 1.6 for 15 percent belt use rate and 0.34 for 84
percent belt use rate.
    We believe that our benefits estimate is conservative. We did not
consider benefits that could result in crash modes other than
rollovers, although advanced glazing could be beneficial in those
crashes as well. In addition, potential benefits could also accrue from
the requirement that would limit how far emergency exit latch
protrusions may extend into the emergency exit opening of the window
when the window is opened for emergency egress. Comments are requested
on how NHTSA could estimate or account for these potential benefits.
Costs
    We estimated the cost of this rulemaking by comparing the cost of
glazing made from tempered glass (which would not meet the proposed
advanced glazing requirements) to glazing comprised of laminated glass
(which would meet the proposed requirements). We estimate that a fully
framed and assembled double-glazed tempered/tempered window
(approximately 25 square feet) costs $340. We estimate that a fully
framed and assembled single-glazed laminated window (approximately 25
square feet) costs $353.75. Thus, the incremental cost of choosing a
single-glazed laminated window over a double-glazed tempered/tempered
window is $13.75 per window ($0.55 per square foot).
    Our cost estimate for this rulemaking also includes changes that
would have to be made to window latch systems. NHTSA found \75\ that
none of the production latches the agency studied could meet the
proposed dynamic

impact test requirement. However, a simple washer screwed onto the top
of the existing MCI E/J-series striker post proved to be a simple and
inexpensive countermeasure that enabled the latches to meet the
proposed requirements.\76\ The cost of each washer was $0.05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ ``Motorcoach Side Glazing Retention Research,'' November
2013, supra.
    \76\ It could be that a simple washer countermeasure only worked
for the MCI latch design, and hence other bus models may need to use
other designs to achieve compliance. However, other manufacturers
could adopt a system similar to the MCI latch system, so costs are
not likely to be significantly greater to redesign the latches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate that there are 2,200 new over-the-road and subject
large buses manufactured annually. Assuming an OTRB or large bus has 6
large windows on each side and that all of them are emergency exits
with latch mechanisms similar to that of the MCI E/J-series, the total
incremental cost of redesigning the bus (from a double-glazed tempered/
tempered window to a single-glazed laminated window) to meet the
proposed requirements is $165.60 (= $13.75 x 12 + $0.05 x 12).
    On the other hand, we believe that there are a substantial number
of buses that already meet the proposed advanced glazing requirements.
We estimated that 47.7 percent of large buses covered by this proposal
are already equipped with laminate glazing. Assuming that 47.7 percent
of the 2,200 new buses covered by the proposal are MCI designs that
already use laminated glazing, the buses would only need the necessary
latch countermeasures to meet the proposed requirements. The remaining
60 percent of the new annual covered bus production would have to incur
the incremental cost of having to convert to a single-glazed laminated
configuration, at a minimum, as well as provide latch countermeasures,
in order to meet the proposed requirements of this rulemaking. Assuming
these factors, the total annual incremental cost for new buses covered
under this proposal is estimated to be $191,169 (= 2,200 x 0.477 x
$0.60 + 2,200 x 0.523 x $165.60).
    We note that there could be cost savings resulting from this
rulemaking due to weight implications. The transition from a double-
glazed tempered/tempered configuration to a single-glazed laminated
configuration could save an estimated 23-33 pounds per window (276-396
pounds per bus), thereby increasing the overall fuel economy during the
lifetime of these buses. We estimate that the fuel savings ($2.18
million to $2.9 million) exceed the material costs of $0.19 million for
the proposal. Comments are requested on this issue.
    The proposed test is estimated to cost $8,700 per bus model,
including the cost of the replacement windows and labor.\77\ Testing
cost is not explicitly included in the cost analysis since it is
considered research and development or overhead for the manufacturers,
which is already included in the 1.5 markup factor from variable costs
to retail price equivalent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ For a bus with emergency (with latch) and non-emergency
(without latch) windows, the cost of testing both types of windows
is as follows: For an approximate cost of single-glazed laminate
window of $1,320, cost of 6 replacement windows and installation
material is $8,100. Three technicians with $20/hr wage for one day
would be $480 and with 25 percent overhead, total labor cost is
$600. Therefore the total cost of testing window retention for a bus
is $8,700 (= $8,100 + $600).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The benefits and costs of this proposed rule are summarized in the
following tables 7, 8, and 9.

                     Table 7--Estimated Annual Costs
                             [2013 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Potential costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Material Costs Per Vehicle................  $87
Material Costs, Total New Fleet...........  $0.19 Million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Table 8--Estimated Annual Benefits
                  [Undiscounted equivalent lives saved]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 percent belt usage......................................         1.6
84 percent belt usage......................................         0.34
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Table 9--Annualized Net Benefits in Millions (M) of 2013 Dollars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Discount rate (%)                        Benefits            Net costs         Net benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3...................................................        $13.22-$2.82       ($4.30-$3.05)        $17.52-$5.87
7...................................................         $9.95-$2.12       ($3.20-$2.25)        $13.15-$4.37
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) is $9.2M in 2013 dollars. The
estimated net benefit for this rule is $5.87 million to $17.52 million
(with a 3 percent discount rate) and $4.37 million to $13.15 million
(with a 7 percent discount rate).

XIV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures

    This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. It is not considered to be
significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). NHTSA has prepared a
PRE for this NPRM.
    This NPRM proposes to adopt a standard that would drive the
installation of advanced glazing in the subject buses. NHTSA would
adopt an impactor test of glazing material. In the tests, a 26 kg (57
lb) impactor would be propelled from inside a test vehicle toward the
window glazing. The impactor and impact speed in these proposed tests
simulate the loading from an average size adult male impacting a window
on the opposite side of a large bus in a rollover. Performance
requirements would apply to side and rear windows and glass panels on
roof that ensure that glazing is securely bonded to window frames, that
advanced glazing retains occupants within the structural sidewall of
the bus even when damaged, and that emergency exit latches remain
closed when impacted. NHTSA also proposes to limit how far emergency
exit latch protrusions may extend into the emergency exit opening of
the window when the window is opened for emergency egress.
    Beyond the benefits attributable to the rule on seat belts and ESC
for this same group of vehicles and a possible rule on bus structural
integrity, we estimate that requiring new large buses of these types to
meet the proposed performance criteria would save 1.54 lives annually
at a 15 percent seat belt use rate and 0.33 lives annually at a 84
percent seat belt use rate. The total annual incremental material cost
for new buses covered under this proposal is estimated to be
approximately $0.19 million (for the entire new fleet) and fuel savings
due to reduced weight of single glazed laminate over double glazed
tempered window configuration is $2.18 million to $2.9 million. The
estimated net benefit for this rule is $5.87 million to $17.52 million
with a 3 percent discount rate and $4.37 million to

$13.15 million with a 7 percent discount rate. The benefits, costs, and
other impacts of this rulemaking are summarized in the previous section
of this preamble and fully discussed in the PRE.

Executive Order 13609: Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation

    The policy statement in section 1 of Executive Order 13609
provides, in part:

The regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ
from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address similar
issues. In some cases, the differences between the regulatory
approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their foreign counterparts
might not be necessary and might impair the ability of American
businesses to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared
challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental,
and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify
approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or
would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International
regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent
unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.

    As mentioned in the body of this preamble, the agency has developed
this NPRM by building on the changes to motorcoach structure that
manufacturers would implement in response to the agency's August 6,
2014 structural integrity NPRM (79 FR 46090). NHTSA based that NPRM on
the ECE R.66 complete vehicle rollover test. By designing NHTSA's
approach to anti-ejection safety countermeasures to incorporate ECE
R.66, NHTSA would reduce unnecessary differences in regulatory
requirements between the U.S. and its trading partners. A bus that
meets ECE R.66 would have the bus structure needed to ensure that
glazing is retained in bus portals in a rollover, and today's NPRM
would ensure that windows are only made of advanced glazing.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking action under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. According to 13 CFR 121.201, the Small
Business Administration's size standards regulations used to define
small business concerns, manufacturers of the vehicles covered by this
proposed rule would fall under North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) No. 336111, Automobile Manufacturing, which has a size
standard of 1,000 employees or fewer. NHTSA estimates that there are 26
manufacturers of these types of vehicles in the United States
(including manufacturers of motorcoaches, cutaway buses, second-stage
motorcoaches, and other types of large buses covered by this proposal).
Using the size standard of 1,000 employees or fewer, we estimate that
approximately 10 of these 26 manufacturers would be considered small
businesses.
    The agency does not believe that this proposed rule would have a
significant economic impact on those small entities. First, the agency
estimates that the incremental costs to each vehicle that currently
does not comply with the proposed requirements would be approximately
$165 per unit to meet the proposed rule. This incremental cost would
not constitute a significant impact given that the average cost of the
vehicles covered by this proposed rule ranges from $200,000 to
$400,000. Further, these incremental costs, which are very small
compared to the overall cost of the vehicle, can ultimately be passed
on to the purchaser and user.
    In addition, the agency believes that certifying compliance with
the proposed rule would not have a significant impact on the
manufacturers. Small manufacturers have various options available that
they may use in certifying compliance with the proposed standard.
Manufacturers are not required to use NHTSA's test as the basis for
their certification. While the agency's test defined in the proposed
regulatory test would be an objective test capable of determining which
vehicles meet the minimum requirements, manufacturers can use other
methods in certifying the compliance of their own vehicles.
    For instance, a manufacturer could obtain advanced glazing windows
from a glazing supplier and test the glazing on body sections of the
vehicle. NHTSA used this approach in its motorcoach side glazing
retention research program. The manufacturer could ``section'' the
vehicle or otherwise obtain a body section representative of the
vehicle, or test the glazing on test frames. It could base its
certification on these tests, without testing a full vehicle.
    Unlike NHTSA, manufacturers certifying compliance of their own
vehicles have more detailed information regarding their own vehicles
and can use reasonable engineering analyses to determine whether their
vehicles will comply with the proposed requirements. We believe that a
small manufacturer would be closely familiar with its own vehicle
design and would be able to utilize modeling and relevant analyses on a
vehicle-by-vehicle basis to reasonably predict whether its design will
meet the requirements of today's proposed rule.
    We also note that the product cycle of the covered buses is
significantly longer than other vehicle types. With a longer product
cycle, we believe that the costs of certification for manufacturers
would be further reduced as the costs of conducting compliance testing
and the relevant analyses could be spread over a significantly longer
period of time.
    Finally, we note that the requirements in today's proposed rule may
affect the operators of the buses that are the subject of today's
NPRM--some of which may be small businesses--but only indirectly as
purchasers of these vehicles. As mentioned above, we anticipate that
the impact on these businesses will not be significant because the
expected price increase of the vehicles (those that do not comply with
the proposed requirements) used by these businesses is small ($165 for
each vehicle valued between $200,000 and $400,000). Further, we
anticipate that fuel costs for these businesses may decrease due to
today's proposed amendments.
    For the aforementioned reasons, I hereby certify that if made
final, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
    With regard to a retrofit requirement applying to a population of
on-road vehicles, the agency has tentatively determined that requiring
retrofitting of existing vehicles would not be practical. Comments are
requested on this issue. An estimated 78.8 percent of the 3,137
motorcoach carriers (according to the

2008 Motorcoach Census) in the United States in 2007 (i.e. about 2,470
carriers) have less than 10 motorcoaches in their fleet. Further, these
companies have an average of three vehicles and eleven employees.\78\
NHTSA tentatively believes that to include retrofit requirements would
be a substantial burden on these small carriers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ While the vehicles included in the motorcoach census are
not exactly the same as the vehicles covered in today's proposal, we
believe the industry's Motorcoach Census offers a reasonable
estimate of the proportion of bus carrier companies that would be
affected as owners/operators of the buses covered in today's NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, we believe that it would not make sense to require
retrofitting of windows with advanced glazing if the underlying
structure of the buses were not reinforced to prevent the glazing from
popping out in a rollover. It may not be structurally viable for many
of these used large buses to be retrofitted. In the August 6, 2014
structural integrity NPRM, NHTSA tentatively decided not to include
retrofit requirements but requested comments on the issue. In today's
NPRM, we also seek comment as to whether the advanced glazing
requirements should be applied to used buses.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's proposed rule pursuant to Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255; Aug. 10, 1999) and concluded that no
additional consultation with States, local governments, or their
representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency
has concluded that the proposed rule does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local
officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
The proposed rule does not have ``substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.''
    NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in two ways. First, the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express
preemption provision: When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect
under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may
prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same
aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment
only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this
chapter. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by
Congress that preempts any non-identical State legislative and
administrative law address the same aspect of performance.
    The express preemption provision described above is subject to a
savings clause under which ``[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from
liability at common law.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(e) Pursuant to this
provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle
manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express
preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme
Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied
preemption of State common law tort causes of action by virtue of
NHTSA's rules--even if not expressly preempted.
    This second way that NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon the
existence of an actual conflict between an FMVSS and the higher
standard that would effectively be imposed on motor vehicle
manufacturers if someone obtained a State common law tort judgment
against the manufacturer--notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance
with the NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA standards established by an
FMVSS are minimum standards, a State common law tort cause of action
that seeks to impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers
will generally not be preempted. However, if and when such a conflict
does exist--for example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum
and a maximum standard--the State common law tort cause of action is
impliedly preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S.
861 (2000).
    Pursuant to Executive Order 13132, NHTSA has considered whether
this proposed rule could or should preempt State common law causes of
action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the
preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that
preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation.
    To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language
and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of today's
proposed rule and does not foresee any potential State requirements
that might conflict with it. NHTSA does not intend that this proposed
rule preempt state tort law that would effectively impose a higher
standard on motor vehicle manufacturers than that established by
today's rule. Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort
law would not conflict with the standards proposed in this NPRM.
Without any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of a
State common law tort cause of action.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this NPRM for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation
of this action would not have any significant impact on the quality of
the human environment.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid
OMB control number. This rulemaking would not establish any new
information collection requirements.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), ``all Federal agencies and departments shall
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies
and departments.'' Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs this agency to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to use available
and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    NHTSA is not aware of any voluntary standards that exist regarding
advanced glazing as an anti-ejection safety countermeasure for large
buses. However, this NPRM proposes to adopt a performance test that is
based on the test procedures developed in the joint NHTSA and Transport
Canada research program (the Martec study). NHTSA's consideration of
this procedure accords with the principles of NTTAA, in that NHTSA is
considering an existing procedure and has not had to expend additional
agency resources studying the same safety need addressed by the Martec
study.

Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,

section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The issue of
preemption is discussed above in connection with E.O. 13132. NHTSA
notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a
petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding
before they may file suit in court.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to
result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $135 million annually
(adjusted for inflation to 2009 dollars with base year of 1995). This
NPRM would not result in expenditures by State, local or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector in excess of
$135 million annually.

Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 and E.O. 13563 require each agency to write
all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain
language includes consideration of the following questions:
     Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
     Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
     Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this proposal.

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

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

Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (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).

XV. Public Participation

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21).
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
    Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by
logging onto the Docket Management System Web site at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html.

How can I be sure that my comments were received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to the docket at the address given above under
ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed to be
confidential business information, you should include a cover letter
setting forth the information specified in our confidential business
information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)

Will the agency consider late comments?

    We will consider all comments received before the close of business
on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent
possible, we will also consider comments that the docket receives after
that date. If the docket receives a comment too late for us to consider
in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will
consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking
action.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments received by the docket at the address
given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the docket are indicated
above in the same location. You may also see the comments on the
Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
You can arrange with the docket to be notified when others file
comments in the docket. See www.regulations.gov for more information.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicles, Motor vehicle safety.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
part 571 as follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

0
2. Section 571.217 is amended by removing the definition of ``Daylight
opening'' in S4, adding a sentence to the end of S5.4.1, revising
S<IP_ADDRESS>, and adding Figure 4 to read as follows:

Sec.  571.217  Standard No. 217; Bus emergency exits and window
retention and release.

* * * * *
    S5.4.1 * * * The emergency exit latches, or other related release
mechanisms, shall not protrude more than 25 millimeters into the
opening of the emergency exit when the window is in the open position
as described in this paragraph.
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> School buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. A
school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall conform to all
the provisions of S<IP_ADDRESS> of this section, except that the
parallelepiped dimension for the opening of the rear emergency door or
doors shall be 45 inches high, 22 inches wide, and six inches deep. The
emergency exit latches, or other related release mechanisms, shall not
protrude more than (1 inch) into the opening of the emergency exit when
the window is in the open position as described in S5.4.1 of this
section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY16.041

0
3. Section 571.217a is added to read as follows:

Sec.  571.217a  Standard No. 217a; Anti-ejection glazing for bus
portals.

    S1. Scope. This standard establishes requirements to improve side,
rear, and roof bus portals by way of glazing that is highly resistant
to partial or complete occupant ejection in all types of crashes.
    S2. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to reduce death and
injuries resulting from complete and partial ejections of bus occupants
through side, rear, and roof portals during rollovers and other
crashes.
    S3. Application.
    (a) Subject to S3(b) of this section, this standard applies to:
    (1) Over-the-road buses, and
    (2) Buses, other than over-the-road buses, that have a gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 11,793 kilograms.
    (b) This standard does not apply to school buses, transit buses,
prison buses, and perimeter-seating buses.
    S4. Definitions.
    Daylight opening means, for openings on the side of the vehicles
(other than a door opening), the locus of all points where a horizontal
line, perpendicular to the vehicle longitudinal centerline, is tangent
to the periphery of the opening. For openings on the rear of the
vehicle (other than a door opening), daylight opening means the locus
of all points where a horizontal line, parallel to the vehicle
longitudinal centerline, is tangent to the periphery of the opening.
For openings on the roof of the vehicle, daylight opening means the
locus of all points where a vertical line is tangent to the periphery
of the opening. The periphery includes surfaces 100 millimeters (mm)
inboard of the inside surface of the window glazing and 25 mm outboard
of the outside surface of the window glazing. The periphery excludes
the following: Any flexible gasket material or weather stripping used
to create a waterproof seal between the glazing and the vehicle
interior; grab handles used to facilitate occupant egress and ingress;
and any part of a seat.
    Over-the-road bus means a bus characterized by an elevated
passenger deck located over a baggage compartment.
    Perimeter-seating bus means a bus with 7 or fewer designated
seating positions rearward of the driver's seating position that are
forward-facing or can convert to forward-facing without the use of
tools and is not an over-the-road bus.
    Portal means an opening that could, in the event of a crash
involving the vehicle, permit the partial or complete ejection of an
occupant from the vehicle, including a young child.
    Prison bus means a bus manufactured for the purpose of transporting
persons subject to involuntary restraint or confinement and has design
features consistent with that purpose.
    Stop-request system means a vehicle-integrated system for passenger
use to signal to a vehicle operator that they are requesting a stop.
    Transit bus means a bus that is equipped with a stop-request system
sold for public transportation provided by, or on behalf of, a State or
local government and that is not an over-the-road bus.
    S5 Requirements. When tested according to the procedures specified
in S6 of this section and under the conditions specified in S7 of this
section, each bus shall meet the following requirements specified in
this section. The requirements of S5 of this section do not apply to
portals other than side, rear, and roof portals, and do not apply to a
side, rear, or roof portal whose minimum surface dimension measured
through the center of its area is less than 279 millimeters.
    S5.1 Edge impact.
    (a) When the ejection impactor described in S8 of this section
contacts the target location specified in S6.1.1 of this section of
each side, rear, or roof daylight opening of a vehicle at 21.6 km/h, no
portion of the window (excluding glazing shards) may pass the ejection
reference plane defined under the procedures of S6 of this section.
    (b) Each piece of window glazing and each surrounding window frame
shall be retained by its surrounding structure in a manner that
prevents the formation of any opening large enough to admit the passage
of a 102 millimeter diameter sphere when a force of no more than 22
Newtons is applied with the sphere at any vector in a direction from
the interior to the exterior of the vehicle.
    S5.2 Center impact.
    (a) When the ejection impactor described in S8 of this section
contacts the target location specified in S6.1.2 of this section of
each side, rear, or roof daylight opening of a vehicle at 21.6
kilometers per hour, no portion of the window (excluding glazing
shards) may pass the ejection reference plane defined under the
procedures of S6 of this section.
    (b) Each piece of window glazing and each surrounding window frame
shall be retained by its surrounding structure in a manner that
prevents the formation of any opening large enough to admit the passage
of a 102 millimeter diameter sphere under a force, including the weight
of the sphere, of up to 22 Newtons.
    S5.3 Center impact to pre-broken glazing.
    (a) When the ejection impactor described in S8 of this section
contacts the target location specified in S6.1.3 of this section of
each side, rear, or roof daylight opening of a vehicle at 21.6
kilometers per hour, no portion of the impactor may displace more than
175 mm past where the surface of the glazing had been in an unbroken
condition.
    (b) Each piece of window glazing and each surrounding window frame
shall be retained by its surrounding structure in a manner that
prevents the formation of any opening large enough to admit the passage
of a 102 millimeter diameter sphere when a force of no more than 22
Newtons is applied with the sphere at any vector in a direction from
the interior to the exterior of the vehicle.
    S5.4 After the impact described in S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3 of this
section, each emergency exit provided in accordance with Standard No.
217 (Sec.  571.217) shall be capable of releasing and opening according
to the requirements specified in that standard.
    S6. Test procedures.
    S6.1 Target locations.
    S6.1.1 Edge impact. Position the impactor face on the glazing
adjacent to a latch or discrete attachment point such that, when viewed
perpendicular to the glazing surface, the center of the impactor face
plate is as close as practicable to the center of the latch or discrete
attachment point with the impactor face plate either horizontal or
vertical, whichever orientation provides the shortest distance between
the two centers, while maintaining at least a 25 millimeter distance
between the impactor face plate edge and the window frame. ``Window
frame'' includes latches, handles, attachments, and any solid
structures other than the glazing material or flexible gaskets. If the
window does not have any latches or discrete attachment points (e.g.,
it is fully rubber bonded or glued), position the impactor directly
above the center of the lower window edge, with the impactor face plate
either horizontal or vertical, whichever orientation provides the
shortest distance between the two centers, with the bottom edge of the
impactor face plate 25 millimeter above the daylight opening periphery
when viewed perpendicular to the glazing surface.
    S6.1.2 Center impact. Position the center of the impactor face,
with the long axis of the impactor face plate either vertical or
horizontal, at the

center of the daylight opening area of the window with the glazing
intact.
    S6.1.3 Center impact to pre-broken glazing. Position the center of
the impactor face, with the long axis of the impactor face plate either
vertical or horizontal, at the center of the daylight opening area of
the window with the glazing pre-broken following the procedure in S6.2
of this section.
    S6.2 Window glazing pre-breaking procedure.
    S6.2.1 Breakage pattern. Locate the geometric center of the
daylight opening. Mark the surface of the window glazing in a
horizontal and vertical grid of points separated by 75  2
millimeters with one point coincident within 2 millimeters
of the geometric center of the daylight opening.
    (a) If the window is a single-pane unit, then both the occupant
space interior and outside exterior surfaces of the glass pane are
marked with the 75 millimeter grid pre-break pattern. The patterns are
offset diagonally from one another (the points on one surface of the
glass pane are offset 35 millimeters horizontally and 35 millimeters
vertically from the points on the contralateral surface of the glass
pane).
    (b) If the window is an insulated-unit or double-glazed window,
then both the occupant space side of the interior pane and the outside
of the exterior pane are marked with the 75 millimeter grid pre-break
pattern.
    (1) If one of the glass panes is constructed of tempered or
toughened glass, the insulated surface of the remaining glass pane
(within the air gap) are marked with the 75 millimeter grid pre-break
pattern. The patterns are offset diagonally from its contralateral
surface.
    (2) If neither pane is tempered glass, then both the occupant space
side of the interior pane and the outside of the exterior pane are
marked with the 75 millimeter grid pre-break pattern. The patterns are
not diagonally offset from one another. The insulated surfaces of the
glass panes (within the air gap) are not pre-broken.
    S6.2.2 Breakage method.
    (a) Start with the inside surface of the window and forward-most,
lowest mark made as specified in S6.2.1 of this section. Use an
electric staple gun without any staples to make a hole in the glazing.
The staple gun applies a line load of about 12 to 14 millimeters on the
glazing.
    (b) Use a 100  10 millimeters x 100  10
millimeters piece of rigid material as a reaction surface on the
opposite side of the glazing to prevent to the extent possible the
window surface from deforming by more than 10 millimeters when pressure
is being applied by the staple gun.
    (c) Continue making holes by moving rearward in the grid until the
end of a row is reached. Then move to the forward-most mark on the next
higher row and make a hole. Continue in this pattern until all the
holes on the inside surface of the glazing are made.
    (d) Repeat the process on the outside surface of the window.
    (e) If punching a hole causes the glazing to disintegrate, halt the
breakage procedure and proceed with the next step in the compliance
test.
    S6.3 Determination of ejection reference planes.
    (a) For side windows, the ``ejection reference plane'' is a
vertical plane parallel to the longitudinal vertical center plane of
the bus passing through a point located at a lateral distance of 102
millimeter from the lateral most point on the glazing and surrounding
frame, with the window in the closed position.
    (b) For rear windows, the ``ejection reference plane'' is a
vertical plane perpendicular to the longitudinal vertical center plane
of the bus passing through a point located at a longitudinal distance
of 102 millimeter from the rear most point on the glazing and
surrounding frame, with the window in the closed position.
    (c) For roof glass panels/windows, the ``ejection reference plane''
is a horizontal plane passing through a point located at a vertical
distance of 102 millimeter from the highest point on the glazing and
surrounding frame, with the window/panel in the closed position.
    S7. Test conditions.
    (a) During testing, the ambient temperature is between 18 degrees
C. and 29 degrees C., at any relative humidity between 10 percent and
70 percent.
    S8. Guided impactor. The impactor test device has the dimensions
shown in Figure 1 of this section. It has a total impactor mass of 26
kilograms and a spring stiffness of 258 Newton per millimeter. The
impactor is propelled in the horizontal direction in impacts to the
side and rear daylight openings and is propelled vertically in impacts
to the roof daylight openings.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06MY16.042

    Issued on: April 26, 2016.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2016-10418 Filed 5-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P