24562 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

a U.S.-flag leg for the remainder of the

voyage. The ‘‘fair and reasonable’’ rate

for this mixed service will be

determined by considering the U.S.-flag

component under the existing

regulations at 46 CFR Part 382 or 383,

as appropriate, and incorporating the

cost for the foreign-flag component into

the U.S.-flag ‘‘fair and reasonable’’ rate

in the same way as the cost of foreignflag vessels used to lighten U.S.-flag

vessels in the recipient country’s

territorial waters. Alternatively, the

supplier of the commodity may offer the

Cargo FOB Canadian transshipment

point, and MARAD will determine fair

and reasonable rates accordingly.

Dated: May 3, 1995.

By Order of the Maritime Administrator.

Joel Richard,

Secretary, Maritime Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–11272 Filed 5–8–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 88–21, Notice No. 09]

RIN No. 2127–AE25

RIN No. 2127–AE62

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards, Bus Emergency Exits and

Window Retention and Release

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule makes a number of

amendments to the agency’s standard on

bus emergency exits and window

retention and release. Among other

things, the amendments permit

manufacturers to install two emergency

exit windows as an alternative to an

emergency exit door as the first means

of satisfying recent requirements for

additional emergency exits on school

buses. The amendments also permit

non-school buses to meet either the

current non-school bus emergency exit

requirements or the recently upgraded

school bus requirements. These

amendments will increase manufacturer

flexibility in meeting emergency exit

requirements while maintaining the

existing level of safety. The

amendments also modify the

requirements specifying the number of

additional exits that are required for

school buses of varying capacity. These

amendments will provide increased

clarity and also ensure that

manufacturers meet the recently

upgraded requirements by providing

additional emergency exits rather than

by increasing the size of existing exits.

The rule also makes a number of more

minor amendments to the standard.

DATES: This final rule is effective May 9,

1996.

Manufacturers may voluntarily

comply with the amendments

promulgated by this final rule on or

after June 8, 1995.

Any petition for reconsideration of

this rule must be received by NHTSA no

later than June 8, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Any petition for

reconsideration should refer to the

docket and notice number for this rule

and be submitted to NHTSA Docket

Section, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room

5109, Washington, DC 20590. Docket

hours are from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.,

Monday through Friday. Telephone:

(202) 366–4949.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Charles Hott, Office of Vehicle Safety

Standards, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh

Street, S.W., Room 5320. Washington,

DC 20590. Telephone (202) 366–0247.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background

A. Standard No. 217

B. November 1992 NPRM

C. December 1993 NPRM

II. Overview

III. December 1993 NPRM

A. Exit window performance requirements

B. School bus emergency exit requirements

C. Extra area credit and means for

specifying requirements for additional

school bus exits

IV. November 1992 NPRM

A. Option for non-school buses to meet

school bus requirements

B. Deletion of S5.2.2.1

V. Other issues

A. Size of retroreflective tape

B. Transpec Comments

VI. Lead Time

VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866; DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

D. National Environmental Policy Act

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

F. Civil Justice Reform

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Standard No. 217

NHTSA has long recognized the safety

need for buses to provide means for

readily accessible emergency egress in

the event of a crash or other emergency.

The agency addressed this safety need

by issuing Safety Standard No. 217, Bus

Emergency

Exits and Window Retention Release

When the standard originally became

effective on September 1, 1973, it

required that buses other than school

buses have exits whose combined area,

in square inches, equaled or exceeded

67 times the number of designated

seating positions. The type of exit used

to comply with this requirement was

left to the choice of the manufacturer,

although the agency assumed that most

manufacturers would meet the standard

primarily by installing push-out side

windows. Moreover, the standard’s

performance requirements for

emergency exit windows effectively

required those windows to be of the

push-out type.

School buses were excluded from this

requirement for the reasons explained in

the notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM):

In view of discipline problems associated

with mandatory quick-release and exit

devices throughout a school bus which may

interfere with the school bus driver’s task,

and the added risk of children falling from

moving school buses, push-out windows for

school buses would remain optional. 35 FR

13025; August 15, 1970.

Later, in response to the Motor

Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety

Amendments of 1974, NHTSA amended

Standard No. 217 to include emergency

exit requirements for school buses.

Instead of adopting the approach used

for non-school buses, the agency

required that all new school buses have

either (1) one rear emergency door, or

(2) ‘‘one emergency door on the

vehicle’s left side that is in the rear half

of the bus passenger compartment and

is hinged on its forward side, and one

push-out rear window.’’

In response to several school bus

accidents in the late 1980’s and

recommendations by the National

Transportation Safety Board, NHTSA

subsequently upgraded Standard No.

217’s school bus requirements to

increase the number of emergency exits

required for larger school buses. This

final rule was published in the Federal

Register (57 FR 49413) on November 2,

1992, and a correction notice was

published on December 2, 1992 (57 FR

57020).

The upgraded rule required, among

other things, that the total area of the

emergency exits of each school bus be

based on the designated seating capacity

of the bus. The rule maintained the

existing requirement that all school

buses have either a rear emergency exit

door or a left-side emergency exit door

along with a rear push-out window, at

the option of the manufacturer. It also

provided, however, that the area in
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 24563

square centimeters of the unobstructed

openings for emergency exit must

collectively amount to at least 432 times

the number of designated seating

positions in the bus (this is the metric

equivalent of an area in square inches

amounting to at least 67 times the

number of designated seating positions).

The rule specified that the front

service door area and either the rear

door exit area (for a bus that has a rear

emergency door) or side door exit area

plus push-out window area (for a bus

with a left side emergency door and

push-out rear window) are counted

toward meeting the total emergency exit

area requirement. Under the rule, if

these areas are insufficient to meet the

total area requirement, manufacturers

must provide sufficient additional exits

to meet the remaining area (termed the

‘‘additional emergency exit area’’

(AEEA)). Such additional exits must be

provided in the following sequence:

(a) A left side emergency exit door (for

a bus that has a rear emergency door) or

right side emergency exit door (for a bus

with a left side emergency door and

push-out rear window);

(b) An emergency roof exit; and,

(c) Any of the following, at the

manufacturer’s option: side emergency

doors, roof exits, or push-out window

exits.

B. November 1992 NPRM

At the same time NHTSA published

the final rule upgrading Standard No.

217’s requirements for school buses, it

published an NPRM to permit nonschool buses to meet either the existing

non-school bus requirements or the

newly upgraded school bus

requirements. 57 FR 49444, November

2, 1992. The agency stated that it

believed the upgraded school bus

requirements provide a level of safety

comparable to that of the existing nonschool bus requirements.

NHTSA noted that the action would

affect obligations of school bus

operators under the Federal Motor

Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs)

issued by the Office of Motor Carrier

Standards in the Federal Highway

Administration. The FMCSRs require all

buses, including school buses, to meet

the Standard No. 217 requirements for

non-school buses. NHTSA explained

that if Standard No. 217 were amended

to allow non-school buses to meet the

upgraded school bus requirements,

there would be no need under the

FMCSRs to retrofit school buses which

are operated in interstate commerce and

therefore required by the FMCSRs to

meet the existing non-school bus

requirements in Standard No. 217.

C. December 1993 NPRM

On December 1, 1993, in response to

two petitions from the Blue Bird Body

Company, NHTSA published in the

Federal Register (58 FR 63321) an

NPRM to amend Standard No. 217’s

emergency exit requirements. The

agency proposed to permit

manufacturers to install windows other

than push-out windows in order to meet

the emergency exit requirements. The

agency also proposed to permit

manufacturers to install two emergency

exit windows as an alternative to an

extra emergency exit door as the first

means of satisfying the AEEA

requirements for school buses. In

addition, NHTSA proposed new criteria

for determining the amount of area that

is credited for emergency exits on

school buses.

NHTSA also proposed a new means

for specifying the number of exits that

are required for school buses of varying

capacity. The agency proposed to

replace the existing requirements,

which are specified in terms of total

emergency exit area and AEEA, with

simple tables specifying the exits that

are required for each level of seating

capacity. Under the proposal, the

number of exits required by the tables

would be derived from the existing

requirements, as well as the criteria at

issue in the NPRM concerning the

amount of area that should be credited

for emergency exits for school buses.

The agency also proposed several

miscellaneous amendments, including

the following: a minimum size

requirement for required school bus

emergency exit windows; a requirement

for an opening device that keeps a

window, once having been fully

opened, from closing past the point at

which the window is perpendicular to

the bus; an amendment to clarify that

the standard’s requirements apply to

any type of emergency exit; and an

amendment to return the standard’s

gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)

references from metric units to pounds,

until NHTSA decides how to convert

GVWR for all safety standards.

NHTSA believed that the proposed

amendments would increase

manufacturer flexibility while

maintaining the existing level of safety,

would provide increased clarity, and

would also ensure that manufacturers

meet the recently upgraded school bus

exit requirements by providing

additional emergency exits rather than

by increasing the size of existing exits.

II. Overview

Today’s final rule is based on the

November 1992 and December 1993

NPRMs. The final rule:

* Permits the installation of two

emergency exit windows as an

alternative to an emergency exit door as

the first means of providing additional

emergency exit area in school buses.

The agency believes that permitting this

additional option will increase

manufacturer flexibility while

maintaining the level of safety

envisioned by the standard;

* Modifies the requirements

specifying the number of additional

exits that are required for school buses

of varying capacity. These modifications

will provide increased clarity and

ensure that manufacturers meet school

bus emergency exit requirements by

providing additional emergency exits

rather than by increasing the size of

existing exits.

* Specifies that emergency exit

windows in school buses must meet the

same minimum size requirements as

non-school bus emergency exit

requirements;

* Permits non-school buses to meet

the emergency exit requirements of

school buses. This will allow school

buses to be used for interstate nonschool bus purposes. School buses that

comply with Standard 217’s school bus

exit requirements will also comply with

the FMCSR’s without the need for

retrofitting; and

* Corrects an error made in the final

rule issued by NHTSA on November 2,

1992, so that the retroreflective tape

outlining the exteriors of required

school bus emergency exits shall be at

least 2.5 centimeters wide rather than

the 3 centimeters specified in the final

rule.

III. The December 1993 Proposal

A. Exit Window Performance

Requirements

As indicated above, the existing

performance requirements for

emergency exit windows in Standard

No. 217 effectively require those

windows to be of the push-out type.

These windows are defined as being

‘‘designed to open outward to provide

for emergency egress.’’ The standard

provides that at least one force

application is required to operate the

emergency release mechanism and that

such force application must differ from

the ‘‘initial push-out motion’’ of the exit

by at least 90° to 180°. The reason that

the existing requirements have the effect

of requiring that an emergency exit

window be a push-out window is that

at the time requirements for emergency
24564 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

exit windows were being developed,

push-out windows were the only

existing emergency exit windows

available.

In the December NPRM, however,

NHTSA proposed to permit installation

of windows other than push-out

windows. The agency ascertained that

other types of emergency windows are

available which the agency believes are

capable of providing safety benefits at

least equivalent to those of push-out

windows.

Blue Bird Body Company (Blue Bird),

National School Transportation

Association, and Flxible Corporation

(Flxible) supported the proposal as

allowing manufacturers additional

flexibility in providing emergency exits

for school buses. Blue Bird specifically

addressed sliding windows as

alternatives to push-out windows, as

further discussed below.

NHTSA agrees with the commenters

and believes that manufacturers should

be permitted the option of installing

windows to meet emergency exit

requirements. Standard No. 217,

therefore, is amended to so provide.

B. School Bus Emergency Exit

Requirements

NHTSA proposed to include sliding

windows as an alternative to doors in

the first priority category of additional

emergency exits, since windows as well

as a door could decrease evacuation

time in catastrophic crashes (e.g.,

involving fire or submersion). Since

improving the evacuation of a school

bus in a catastrophic crash was the basis

for requiring school buses to have

AEEA, a window could satisfy the safety

need for the AEEA requirement.

However, NHTSA did not believe all

windows would be suitable for

inclusion in the first priority category.

NHTSA did not propose to include

push-out exit windows in the first

priority category, since the agency

believed that there are differences

between push-out and sliding windows

that make the former less desirable on

a school bus. In some evacuation

situations, a push-out window could be

difficult, if not impossible, for a small

child to open. NHTSA explained in the

NPRM that push-out windows could not

have been opened in the catastrophic

Alton, Texas school bus crash until the

vehicle was nearly filled with water

because of the outside water pressure. If

a bus rolled over on its side, the

windows on the upper side would have

to be pushed open against gravity. In

both those situations, however, sliding

windows would be easier to open. Even

if the bus were upright, push-out

windows would have to be held open

while a sliding window would remain

open without being held. In addition,

NHTSA pointed out that push-out

windows typically require the occupant

to exit the vehicle head first while

holding the window open, while sliding

windows remain open, allowing the

occupant to exit feet first.

To avoid creating confusion among

children trying to decide how to open

the windows of a school bus, NHTSA

proposed to require that if a

manufacturer chooses to install

emergency exit windows, it cannot

install both sliding and push-out

windows in the same vehicle. The

agency proposed an exception to this

prohibition for a bus with a single rear

push-out window. Such a bus is

typically a rear-engine bus in which a

sliding rear window could not be

installed.

The agency received nine comments

on the NPRM. Commenters included

school bus manufacturers, the National

School Transportation Association (a

trade association of school bus

contractors), and state and local

agencies responsible for pupil

transportation. There was no consensus

among the commenters on whether

sliding windows should be in the first

priority category of additional

emergency exits.

Commenters supporting the proposal

were the National School

Transportation Association (NSTA),

petitioner Blue Bird Body Company

(Blue Bird), Portland Public Schools,

and Salem Keizer Public Schools

(Salem, Oregon). The California

Highway Patrol (CHP) supported

allowing sliding windows in school

buses up to 10,000 pounds or 20

passengers. These commenters

expressed either strong or qualified

support for the proposal. Commenters

expressing strong support were NSTA

and Blue Bird. NSTA indicated that it

supported permitting sliding windows

as a first priority option because the

amendment would increase

manufacturer design flexibility, and

could lead to a greater variety of exit

types and locations on a school bus.

Blue Bird stated that it supported the

proposal for the reasons provided in its

petition for rulemaking, i.e., that

window-size exits provide better

structural integrity than doors, that

properly designed window-sized exits

are less likely to allow passenger

ejection while simultaneously providing

quick egress in emergency situations,

and that window exits provide

economic benefits. Blue Bird also stated

that its suggestions for rulemaking are

based on its experience in

manufacturing buses with various types

and sizes of emergency exits and on

[O]ur knowledge of the preferences of

school bus users as specified in the 1990

National Standards for School Buses and

state school bus specifications. Blue Bird

believes the users of school buses are

ultimately responsible for safe and efficient

vehicle evacuation in emergencies and their

knowledge and preferences should be

weighed heavily in any final rule regarding

emergency exits.

Commenters opposing the proposal

were Wayne Wheeled Vehicles (WWV),

a school bus manufacturer,

Washington’s Superintendent of Public

Instruction (WSPI), Thomas Built Buses,

another school bus manufacturer, and

CHP, with regard to large school buses.

WWV opposed any change to the

sequential listing of emergency exits

currently provided in Standard 217, but

did not explain the basis for its

opposition. WSPI opposed permitting

sliding exit windows as a first priority

in satisfying the AEEA, arguing that

these windows are of limited value

except in certain specific situations,

such as submersion.

NHTSA disagrees with commenters’

assertions that the usefulness of

emergency exit windows is so limited

that their inclusion in the first priority

category of additional emergency exits

is unwarranted. The agency also

disagrees with CHP that sliding

windows should not be installed on

large school buses. The basic rationale

of the AEEA requirements is to provide

additional emergency exits for

catastrophic crashes. In such cases, a

variety of exits in both location and type

provides additional means of egress in

a variety of different situations. NHTSA

believes that exit windows provide a

reasonable and effective option for such

egress.

The agency further concludes that,

even if exit windows may not be useful

in all situations, this limitation is not

determinative. This amendment does

not require installation of exit windows,

but merely permits them as an option in

meeting the AEEA requirement. The

intent of this rulemaking, therefore, is to

enable manufacturers to install exit

windows when school bus purchasers

prefer them. NHTSA concurs with Blue

Bird that school bus purchasers are best

able to determine which types of

emergency exits would best meet their

school bus needs. The agency does not

have data that would justify denying

school bus purchasers and

administrators their preferences

between exit windows and side doors,

particularly in view of the cost

differential between the two.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 24565

Opponents of this proposal raised

safety concerns about sliding windows.

Thomas argued that in an emergency,

the natural reflex of people is to push

out, as in exiting a building, and the

motion required in releasing a sliding

window is inconsistent with that

natural tendency. Thomas stated that

since children are accustomed to

pushing out to exit, the sliding windows

will confuse them. WSPI asserted that

its experience has been that children

tend not to use windows, especially in

drills.

Thomas asserted, without supporting

data, that the motion necessary to open

a sliding window is contrary to

passengers natural tendency. Assuming

that statement to be valid, Thomas did

not provide information showing that

such natural tendency cannot be

overcome through adequate training,

such as evacuation drills. NHTSA

believes that local school officials can

and will implement training programs

that will overcome any reluctance on

the part of students to use a sliding

window in an emergency. Moreover,

school children typically ride to and

from school in the same bus for the

entire school year, and often for the

entire time they are in elementary

school, middle school or high school.

Since school children usually change

buses infrequently, children riding a bus

with a sliding window emergency exit

will likely have a high degree of

exposure to that type of exit, which

increases their degree of familiarity with

the sliding window exit.

Thomas argued that sliding windows

cannot be opened from the outside as

can doors, thereby diminishing safety.

While it is correct that a sliding window

typically cannot be opened from the

outside, the agency does not believe that

it is necessary for all emergency exits to

be capable of being opened from the

outside. Emergency exits are intended

primarily to provide occupants a means

of egress from inside the bus in case of

emergency. The rear and side

emergency doors and roof hatches are

required to have release mechanisms on

the outside as well as the inside of the

bus. The agency believes, therefore, that

doors and roof hatches provide access

from outside the bus sufficient to meet

all accident scenarios. If necessary in an

extreme emergency, windows can be

broken from the outside to provide

emergency egress.

Thomas asserted that since there is no

aisle leading to an emergency window

and it can only be reached by climbing

over a seat, the ability to exit the vehicle

quickly is reduced. It should be noted

that the NPRM proposed to allow the

installation of either two sliding

windows or a door as the first means of

satisfying the AEEA requirement. While

NHTSA concurs that it is probably

quicker to exit a bus when there is an

aisle leading to an exit as opposed to

when there is none, the fact that there

would be two window exits (versus one

side door) should offset any increase in

evacuation time due to the lack of an

aisle leading to the window exit.

Finally, Thomas stated that there has

been little or no experience in

determining the crashworthiness of

sliding emergency exit windows and

suggested that NHTSA conduct impact

and rollover testing of sliding windows

on school bus bodies before issuing a

final rule. NHTSA is not persuaded that

Thomas’ crashworthiness concerns are

warranted. Thomas questioned what

would be the long-term effect on sliding

windows of the racking and shifting to

which school buses are subjected.

NHTSA believes that the ‘‘racking and

shifting’’ to which school buses are

subjected in their normal daily

utilization should have no greater

adverse affect on sliding windows than

on any other exit in the vehicle. The

design and construction of the vehicle

should allow for such motion to

minimize any adverse effects. The

commenter was also concerned that a

sliding window would be affected by

the deformation of a bus body in a

rollover crash. NHTSA believes that

body deformation of the vehicle in a

rollover situation may or may not affect

the proper operation of sliding

windows. Body deformation could

affect any exit on the vehicle, but by

providing a variety of exits on the

vehicle, the likelihood is increased that

occupants will have available a

workable exit from which to depart the

vehicle.

Thomas also asked how a sliding

window would be affected by water

pressure when a bus is submerged.

Thomas believed that, in a submersion

situation, water will rush in after any

exit is opened. Thomas was concerned

that under those conditions, a child

might not be able to remain sufficiently

oriented to be able to exit through that

opening.

In response, the agency notes that, in

a submersion situation, water will rush

in as soon as any exit is opened. The

orientation of the occupants of the

vehicle in this situation will be a

problem regardless of the nature of the

exit. Therefore, NHTSA believes that

sliding windows pose no greater hazard

in this instance than any other exit.

After reviewing the comments on the

NPRM, NHTSA concludes it is

reasonable to allow windows as the first

means of satisfying the AEEA

requirement. The amendment would

provide flexibility to manufacturers and

school bus purchasers, while not

degrading safety. However, partly in

response to particular aspects of the

NPRM, some commenters supporting

the proposal to permit sliding windows

qualified their support by suggesting

certain conditions should be placed on

sliding windows for the exits to be in

the first priority category of the AEEA.

As discussed below, this rule adopts

many of these suggested conditions.

For a school bus to meet the AEEA

using windows, there must be two

windows on the vehicle. This condition

was proposed in the NPRM. NSTA

commented that it does not believe that

it is preferable to install more than two

sliding exit windows. Once the vehicle

has been equipped with two sliding

windows, it would be better to require

the next exit to be a roof exit, as this will

provide a greater variety of exit types

and locations. NHTSA concurs, and has

decided that a requirement for two

windows is appropriate.

Each window must meet a minimum

size requirement. This condition was

proposed in the NPRM as a requirement

for all emergency exit windows on

school buses. The minimum size

requirement is the same one that has

been in S5.4.1 of Standard 217 for

windows on non-school buses. Section

S5.4.1 specifies that window exits must

provide an opening large enough to

permit passage of an ellipse having a

major axis of 20 inches and a minor axis

of 13 inches. This rule specifies that

school bus exit windows, including

sliding windows, must satisfy this size

requirement.

Except for a bus with a single rear

push-out window, both sliding and

push-out windows may not be installed

in the same vehicle. This requirement

was proposed in the NPRM. No

commenter opposed it. Accordingly, the

agency is adopting it for the reasons

stated in the proposal.

The sliding windows installed in

school buses pursuant to this rule must

slide vertically, not horizontally. This

limitation results from comments from

Portland Public Schools and SalemKeizer Public Schools. Both expressed

concern that horizontal sliding windows

would provide openings that are more

accessible, thus allowing children to put

their heads or arms out the windows or

enable them to throw items out the

windows. Portland argued that the

window designs and the proximity of

the students to the windows would

render it extremely difficult for drivers

to regulate how far the windows may

open. Both agreed that vertical sliding

windows, or a ‘‘full drop’’ design,
24566 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

would be safer and allow faster

evacuation, provided they had

appropriate release and warning

systems.

NHTSA agrees with Portland and

Salem-Keizer that horizontal sliding

windows on school buses may increase

the potential for student injuries.

Typically, the vertical drop sash

windows currently installed in school

buses are designed to have a drop of

approximately 9 inches. That opening

permits ventilation, yet is generally

above the heads of the children seated

nearby, making it difficult for them to

extend their heads and/or arms out of

the windows. Vertical sliding

emergency exit windows can be

designed so that they drop partially to

permit ventilation, then drop farther to

allow for evacuation. Horizontal sliding

windows, on the other hand, in order to

provide an opening large enough to

evacuate the vehicle, must provide an

area close to the heads and arms of the

passengers, making it easier for them to

extend their heads and/or arms out of

the windows. Accordingly, the agency

has decided that horizontal sliding

windows may not be installed in school

buses as emergency exits.

The agency has decided that both

push-out and vertical sliding windows

should be authorized as a first priority

for providing the AEEA in school buses.

The agency’s intent in requiring more

emergency exits on school buses, as

promulgated in the final rule of

November 2, 1992, was to provide a

greater number and variety of exits to be

available in catastrophic situations

where the occupants must exit the bus

as quickly as possible. NHTSA believes

that allowing emergency exit windows

in meeting those requirements gives

both manufacturers and consumers

additional choices when ordering and

manufacturing school buses. Finally, the

agency notes that some states currently

require push-out windows in school

buses in addition to the emergency exits

required by Standard No. 217. NHTSA

believes that by allowing windows to be

installed instead of doors, some of those

states may realize cost savings by being

relieved of the necessity of installing

additional windows.

NHTSA has decided not to adopt its

proposal to require push-out windows

to have positive opening devices that

would allow occupants to exit through

the window without having to hold it

open. Commenters WSPI, NSTA, and

CHP all expressed support for the

proposal, asserting that such a device

would assist children in evacuating the

vehicle. Wayne and Blue Bird opposed

it, arguing that current designs of

emergency exit windows are sufficient

and that no safety need has been shown

to require these devices. Blue Bird also

asserted that such devices are not

currently available on emergency exit

windows, and suggested that NHTSA

develop and test such a device and issue

performance standards to regulate it. In

view of Blue Bird’s comments, the

agency has concerns about the

practicability of a hold-open device for

windows. NHTSA is not aware of the

availability of any hold-open device that

will function properly as applied to

windows. Accordingly, the agency is

not adopting the proposal.

C. Exit Area Credit and Means for

Specifying Requirements for Additional

School Bus Exits.

The NPRM proposed to limit the

amount of area that can be credited for

any particular emergency exit in

satisfaction of the AEEA requirement.

The reason for the proposal was stated

as follows:

Restricting the amount of area that can be

credited for an exit would ensure that [the

AEEA] rulemaking would achieve its

intended purpose of increasing the number of

exits available to school bus occupants in a

catastrophic crash.

(58 FR at 63324.) Stated differently, the

purpose of the proposal was to ensure

that manufacturers would install

additional exits to meet the AEEA,

rather than simply enlarge the size of

exits existing prior to the AEEA

rulemaking. NHTSA believed that

increasing the number of exits will

decrease evacuation time in a

catastrophic crash.

The NPRM proposed two options for

restricting the amount of area that can

be credited for each emergency exit:

Option 1—limit the amount of area

that could be credited toward any one

emergency exit to 3,458 square

centimeters. This value is comparable to

the current amount that can be credited

for a non-school bus exit (536 square

inches).

Option 2—limit the amount of area

that could be credited to an emergency

exit to the following:

* Front service door: daylight opening

or 12,916 square centimeters (cm),

whichever is less;

* Rear or side exit door: 6,954 square

cm;

* Rear push-out window: 5,002 square

cm;

* Roof exit: daylight opening or 3,458

square cm, whichever is less;

* Side exit window: daylight opening

or 3,458 square cm, whichever is less.

The NPRM also stated that the agency

was considering restating Standard

217’s requirements for the provision of

school bus emergency exits (S5.2.3) in

the form of a table, thereby replacing the

formula in S5.2.3 for calculating the

requisite AEEA for each bus.

Commenters differed as to which

option they preferred. NSTA, Blue Bird

and CHP supported option 1 on the

basis that it would equalize the

requirements of both school buses and

non-school buses, thus providing better

evacuation possibilities for both. Blue

Bird expressed preference for option 1

because it would serve to increase the

number of emergency exits in school

buses. However, Blue Bird also

concurred with option 2 as ‘‘reasonable,

practical, and justifiable,’’ recognizing

that option 1 may not be practical or

justifiable, given that option 1 would

require substantially more exits than

those currently required by Standard

217 and specified by the 1990 National

Standards for School Buses.

WSPI, Thomas, and Wayne supported

option 2. Thomas said that option 2

would require the same number and

size of all emergency exits by all

manufacturers.

After considering the comments,

NHTSA has decided to adopt option 2,

though expressed in the form of tables

(see Tables 1 through 3 below). NHTSA

agrees with Blue Bird that the number

of emergency exits required by option 1

may be excessive. Option 1 was based

on the current requirement in Standard

217 (S5.2) that limits the amount of area

that can be credited for an exit on a nonschool bus. In proposing option 1,

NHTSA believed that the option would

make the number of emergency exits on

school buses closer to the number of

emergency exits on non-school buses.

The agency realized, however, that since

school buses have a greater seating

capacity than non-school buses of the

same size, option 1 might have resulted

in a school bus having to have many

more exits than a non-school bus of the

identical size. NHTSA requested

comments on the number of exits

required on the same bus if it is

equipped with seats either as a school

bus or as a non-school bus.

Blue Bird was the only commenter

responding to this request. Blue Bird

stated that a 91-passenger school bus

would be the equivalent of a 61-

passenger non-school bus. Under option

1, this school bus would be required to

have 11 exits, while the non-school bus

would be required to have 8. Under

option 2, this school bus would be

required to have 7 exits. NHTSA

believes that option 2 is the more

appropriate option, since under it,

school buses and non-school buses have

a comparable and appropriate number

of required exits.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 24567

The amount of emergency exit area for

both school buses and non-school buses

is based on seating capacity, calculated,

as stated above, at 432 times the number

of designated seating positions in the

vehicle in square centimeters. School

buses distribute this area slightly

differently than non-school buses

because many, if not most, school bus

passengers are smaller than most adults.

Non-school buses meet the emergency

exit requirements primarily by push-out

windows. School buses, on the other

hand, use a variety of exits, including

doors, windows, and roof hatches, at

specified locations throughout the bus.

The maximum seating capacity of a

school bus is higher than that of a nonschool bus. School buses can transport

3 to a seat if the passengers are in grades

1 through 5, and 2 per seat in grades 9

through 12. For students in grades 6

through 8, school districts vary the

capacity of the bus depending on the

size of the students. In any case, NHTSA

believes that an excessive number of

emergency exits as suggested by option

1 would be counterproductive by

possibly degrading the structural

integrity of the bus. Thus, the agency

does not believe that requiring the

additional exits resulting from option 1

is desirable.

With regard to the agency’s

consideration in the NPRM of adopting

tables to replace the AEEA formulas in

S5.2.3 of the Standard 217, WSPI

opposed the change as unnecessary:

It is a simple task to determine the amount

of required exit area for a given passenger

capacity, and the requirements are quite clear

as to the order that additional required exits

must be added.

In contrast, Thomas supported the

change. Thomas indicated that a table is

needed to determine the number of

required emergency exits, because there

has been a great deal of confusion over

the number of emergency exits that are

required of school buses with certain

capacities:

The number of required emergency exits

already differs between body manufacturers

due to differences in daylight opening

calculations which are a result of each

manufacturer’s unique exit door sizes and

designs. To further complicate the situation,

front service door type (outward opening vs.

jackknife), step height (91⁄4′′ vs. 81⁄4′′), and

headroom (73′′ vs. 78′′) on some

manufacturer’s vehicles also affect daylight

opening calculations, which in turn impact

the number of additional emergency exits.

NHTSA believes that tables that show

the AEEA requirements for school buses

express emergency exit requirements

with greater clarity and specificity,

thereby reducing or removing the

possibility of misunderstanding,

misinterpretation, or miscalculation of

the formula. Since the tables are based

on seating capacity, while the formula is

based not only on seating capacity but

also calculations of exit areas, the

agency believes that the tables will be

easier to implement. Accordingly, this

rule adopts the tables based on the

calculations in option 2. Further, this

rule specifies a new table in addition to

the two discussed in the NPRM (one

table designated the additional exits for

school buses with a rear emergency exit

door, while the other designated the

additional exits for school buses with a

side emergency exit door and a rear

emergency push-out window). The two

tables in the NPRM for determining the

number of emergency exits required on

a school bus treated all buses with a rear

door and a seating capacity greater than

70 equally and all buses with a side

door and rear push-out window and a

seating capacity greater than 82 equally.

In other words, under the tables, a bus

with a capacity significantly above 70 or

82 did not need to have more exits than

a 71 or 83-passenger capacity bus.

The NPRM explained that these limits

were based on the largest capacity bus

NHTSA believed is built for each type.

The agency requested comments on

whether even larger capacity buses are

being built. In response, commenters

submitted information that a significant

number of buses have a sufficiently

large capacity that they would be

required to have more than one ‘‘third

priority’’ exit.

NHTSA believes all school buses

should have exits proportional to their

capacity. Accordingly, the tables are

modified as follows. The modified

tables 1 and 2 indicate that buses over

a certain capacity (70 or 82) must

incorporate exits in addition to the

required additional door and roof exit

until the credit for those exits (found in

table 3) plus either 70 or 82, depending

on school bus type, exceeds the capacity

of the bus. The third table responds to

a comment from Blue Bird urging that

NHTSA include tables showing the

amount of credit for each type of exit

instead of tables indicating the type of

exits required for buses of certain

capacity. NHTSA believes that the third

table will reduce confusion and

questions about equipping very large

school buses with various combinations

of third priority exits.

This rule adopts the following tables.

Table 1 applies to school buses with a

rear emergency door.

TABLE 1

Seating

capacity Additional exits required *

1–45 ...... None.

46–62 .... 1 left side exit door or 2 exit windows.

63–70 .... 1 left side exit door or 2 exit windows, and 1 roof exit.

71 and

above.

1 left side exit door or 2 exit windows, and 1 roof exit, and any

combination of door, roof, or

windows such that the total capacity specified in Table 3 for

these exits, plus 70, is greater

than the seating capacity of the

bus.

*Side emergency exit doors must meet the

requirements of S5.2.3.2(a); emergency roof

exits must meet the requirements of

S5.2.3.2(b); and emergency window exits

must meet the requirements of S5.2.3.2(c).

Table 2 applies to school buses with

a side emergency exit door and a rear

emergency push-out window:

TABLE 2

Seating

capacity Additional exits required *

1–57 ...... None.

58–74 .... 1 right side exit door or 2 exit windows.

75–82 .... 1 right side exit door or 2 exit windows, and 1 roof exit.

83 and

above.

1 right side exit door or 2 windows, and 1 roof exit, and any

combination of door, roof, or

windows such that the total capacity credit specified in Table 3

for these exits plus 82 is greater

than the capacity of the bus.

*Side emergency exit doors must meet the

requirements of S5.2.3.2(a), emergency roof

exits must meet the requirements of

S5.2.3.2(b), emergency window exits must

meet the requirements of S5.2.3.2(c).

Table 3 specifies the credit that is

accorded each emergency exit installed

on the vehicle to satisfy the AEEA

requirement:

TABLE 3

Exit type Capacity

credit

Side Door ...................................... 16

Window ......................................... 8

Roof Exit ....................................... 8

IV. November 1992 NPRM

A. Option for Non-School Buses To

Meet School Bus Requirements

As indicated above, at the same time

NHTSA published the final rule

upgrading Standard No. 217’s

requirements for school buses, it

published an NPRM to permit non-
24568 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

school buses to meet either the existing

non-school bus requirements or the

newly upgraded school bus

requirements. The agency stated that it

believed the upgraded school bus

requirements provide a level of safety

comparable to that of the existing nonschool bus requirements. NHTSA noted

that the FMCSRs require all buses,

including school buses, to meet the

Standard No. 217 requirements for nonschool buses. The agency explained that

if Standard No. 217 were amended to

allow non-school buses to meet the

upgraded school bus requirements,

there would be no need under the

FMCSRs to retrofit school buses that are

operated in interstate commerce and

therefore required by the FMCSRs to

meet the existing non-school bus

requirements in Standard No. 217.

Five comments were submitted in

response to the NPRM. Chrysler

Corporation expressed support for the

proposal. Blue Bird, on the other hand,

stated that although it supported the

concept of equivalent exit requirements

for school buses and non-school buses,

it opposed the proposal in the NPRM

because the final rule of November 2,

1992 failed to upgrade school bus

emergency exit requirements

sufficiently to be equivalent to nonschool bus requirements. Specifically,

Blue Bird stated that NHTSA erred in

permitting the crediting of the area of

the front service door, permitting large

exits to be credited with their total area,

and by not requiring an equal

distribution of exits on each side of the

bus. Accordingly, Blue Bird argued that

school bus emergency exit requirements

are not equivalent to non-school bus

exit requirements and that non-school

buses should therefore not be permitted

to meet the less stringent requirements

of school buses.

NHTSA agrees that the emergency

exit requirements of school buses and

non-school buses are currently not

equivalent. It is the intent of these

amendments to Standard No. 217,

however, to make them so. As discussed

in the NPRM of December 1, 1993 (58

FR 63323–63324), the standard does not

prohibit the front service door from

being included as an emergency exit.

NHTSA has consistently stated that it

can be, so long as it meets all the

emergency exit requirements of the

standard. Further, the standard requires

a specific distribution of emergency

exits in school buses, whether or not

that distribution results in an exact 40–

40 distribution.

Blue Bird stated that a 56-passenger

non-school bus would be required to

have 8 emergency exits while a 56-

passenger school bus would not be

required to have any additional

emergency exits. NHTSA points out that

according to the tables issued by this

notice, a 56-passenger school bus

equipped with a rear emergency exit

door would also be required to have 1

left side emergency door or 2 emergency

exit windows. Apart from that, however,

using figures supplied by Blue Bird in

its comments, a 56-passenger nonschool bus would be approximately the

same size as an 84-passenger school bus.

Thus, under the emergency exit

requirements promulgated by this

notice, that school bus would be

required to have 7 or 8 emergency exits,

depending on the type of bus and the

type of exits selected by the purchaser.

The agency believes, therefore, that the

emergency exit requirements for school

buses and non-school buses will

provide an equivalent level of safety,

thereby safely permitting non-school

buses to comply with school bus

emergency exit requirements.

The National Institute of Standards

and Technology of the United States

Department of Commerce submitted

comments from the Economic

Commission for Europe (ECE)

suggesting consideration of ECE Nos. 36

and 52 for regulations prescribing

technical requirements for doors,

windows, and escape hatches used as

emergency exits. ECE No. 36 applies to

intercity and touring buses, while ECE

No. 52 applies to small capacity public

service vehicles with a seating capacity

of 9 to 16 passengers. Therefore, the ECE

standards are not relevant to this

rulemaking action which primarily

affects only school buses. In addition,

the ECE standards are design standards

while Standard No. 217 specifies

performance standards.

NHTSA has decided, therefore, to

amend Standard No. 217 to permit nonschool buses to comply with the

emergency exit requirements of school

buses. Whether or not this option will

be widely used by non-school bus

manufacturers, it will permit operators

of school buses in interstate commerce

to comply with the FMCSRs without

having to go to the trouble and expense

of retrofitting those vehicles.

B. Deletion of S5.2.1.1

NHTSA also proposed in the NPRM of

November 2, 1992 to delete S5.2.1.1

from Standard No. 217. That provision

permits non-school buses with a gross

vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater

than 10,000 pounds to satisfy the

emergency exit requirements of the

standard by installing one side

emergency exit door for each three

designated seating positions. That

configuration is prohibited for school

buses by paragraph S5.2.3.2(a)(4), which

prohibits placing more than one side

emergency door on school buses within

the same post and roof bow panel space.

That configuration is prohibited for

school buses because of the agency’s

concern about the structural integrity of

school buses in which too many side

doors are installed. In addition, the

agency is unaware of any bus that has

ever been manufactured utilizing that

option. No commenters addressed this

proposal. Accordingly, for the reasons

stated, this final rule deletes paragraph

S5.2.1.1 from Standard No. 217.

V. Other Issues

A. Size of Retroreflective Tape

This rule makes a technical correction

to the requirement in S5.5.3(c) of

Standard 217 regarding the size of

retroreflective tape that the standard

requires to be placed on the outside

perimeter of each required emergency

exit. S5.5.3(c) requires the tape to be a

minimum of 3 centimeters (cm) wide.

The preambles to the NPRM and final

rule for the requirement referred to the

size of the tape as a minimum of 1 inch

wide. However, the agency erroneously

specified a minimum 3 cm requirement

for the tape. In converting the 1 inch

value to a metric value, NHTSA

inadvertently increased the minimum

size requirement by 0.46 cm.

The increased size has caused

problems concerning compliance with

S5.5.3(c). Blue Bird stated that 3 cm.

retroreflective tape is not commercially

available. Given that the increase in size

was inadvertent and in view of the

compliance problems of manufacturers,

NHTSA stated in a July 7, 1993 letter to

Blue Bird that the agency will correct

the requirement. This rule, therefore,

amends paragraph S5.5.3(c) of Standard

No. 217 to specify that the width of the

reflective tape required by that

provision shall be 2.5 cm.

This correction imposes no duties or

responsibilities on any party not already

affected by the final rule. The

discussion in the preamble to the final

rule makes it clear that the agency did

not intend to change the measurement

of the retroreflective tape proposed in

the NPRM of March 15, 1991, and that

the error was an unintended conversion

error. Accordingly, NHTSA finds for

good cause that notice and opportunity

for comments on this issue are not

necessary.

B. Transpec Comments

Transpec, Inc. submitted comments

and the law offices of Miller, Canfield,

Paddock and Stone (Miller) submitted

‘‘Supplemental Comments’’ on behalf of
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 24569

Transpec, Inc. Transpec argued that the

NPRM of November 2, 1992, Docket No.

88–21, Notice 4, RIN 2127–AE25, 57 FR

49444 (Notice 4) ‘‘opened the door to

reconsideration of emergency exit sizes

specified in FMVSS 217,’’ and urged

NHTSA to establish a minimum size of

20 x 20 inches for roof hatches.

Transpec also suggested that NHTSA

establish a maximum amount of area

that can be credited for any emergency

exit. In addition, the Supplemental

Comments submitted by Miller

suggested that NHTSA mandate roof

hatches for all school buses.

NHTSA disagrees that the issue of the

size of emergency exits was reopened by

Notice 4. Notice 4 addressed only the

proposal to permit non-school buses to

meet the emergency exit requirements

for school buses. Nothing was said in

Notice 4 concerning the sizes or

locations of school bus emergency exits.

The issues raised by Transpec, on the

other hand, were considered and

discussed at length in the final rule of

November 2, 1992, Docket No. 88–21,

Notice 3, RIN 2127–AC88, 57 FR 49413

(Notice 3). Therefore, Transpec’s and

Miller’s comments address issues that

are beyond the scope of this notice and,

therefore, may not be entertained here.

The agency notes, however, that

Transpec’s suggestion that NHTSA

establish a maximum amount of area

credit that can be allowed for any

emergency exit has been addressed and

resolved in this notice (see Section IIIC

above).

VI. Lead Time

Although NHTSA believes that the

changes promulgated in this notice are

minor, some manufacturers may need to

recompute or possibly redesign some of

the emergency exits in their school

buses. In order to provide adequate lead

time to accommodate this, NHTSA

considers a lead time of one year to be

sufficient. For those manufacturers that

are now or will soon be in compliance,

they may comply with the amendments

in this notice any time after 30 days

after publication of this final rule in the

Federal Register, but not later than one

year after such date.

VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order No. 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This rulemaking document was not

reviewed under E.O. 12866, Regulatory

Planning and Review. NHTSA has

considered the impact of this

rulemaking action under the DOT’s

regulatory policies and procedures and

has determined that it is not

‘‘significant’’ within the meaning of

those policies and procedures. Since

compliance with the amendments is

optional, there are no cost or leadtime

considerations for manufacturers of new

buses. Accordingly, a full regulatory

evaluation was not prepared.

If a school bus manufacturer elects to

use sliding windows as a first priority

exit to meet the AEEA, there could be

potential cost savings accruing from this

rule. NHTSA estimates that the

consumer cost of sliding emergency exit

windows is $76 per window, or $152

per pair. Assuming sales of 38,000 new

school buses per year, NHTSA estimates

that the total cost of installing sliding

exit windows instead of side exit doors

in those buses would be $14,253,800.

NHTSA further estimates that the total

cost of installing all side emergency exit

doors in accordance with Standard No.

217 would be $20,143,800. Thus, a

savings could be realized by electing the

sliding window option instead of the

side door option, with no diminution in

school bus safety.

NHTSA estimates that permitting

non-school buses the option of

complying with school bus emergency

exit requirements could result in

potential cost savings under the

FMCSRs for users of school buses in

interstate commerce. The incremental

cost of retrofitting a push-out window in

a school bus is approximately $150.

Thus, a typical 66-passenger non-school

bus requiring retrofitting of eight pushout windows could realize a per-vehicle

cost savings of approximately $1,200.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

NHTSA has considered the effects of

this rulemaking action under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby

certify that the amendments

promulgated by this final rule will not

have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, the agency has not

prepared a regulatory flexibility

analysis.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act

requires each agency to evaluate the

potential effects of its rules on small

businesses, small organizations, and

small governmental jurisdictions. The

small businesses and organizations most

likely to be affected by this final rule

are: (1) school bus manufacturers; (2)

push-out and sliding window

equipment manufacturers; (3) school

bus dealers and distributors; and (4)

state and local school districts that

purchase new school bus equipment.

Because the proposed requirements are

optional, no significant economic

impacts are anticipated for any of these

small business entities from this final

rule.

There will be a potential cost savings

under the FMCSR’s for small

businesses, organizations and

individuals who purchase or use

vehicles that are also operated in

interstate commerce. As indicated

above, it cost approximately $150 to

retrofit a push-out window into a school

bus. Thus, a typical 66-passenger nonschool bus requiring retrofitting of eight

push-out windows will realize a pervehicle cost savings of approximately

$1,200.

C. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

This rulemaking action has been

analyzed in accordance with the

principles and criteria of Executive

Order 12612, and the agency has

determined that this rule does not have

sufficient federalism implications to

warrant the preparation of a Federalism

Assessment.

D. National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking

action for the purposes of the National

Environmental Policy Act and has

determined that implementation of this

action will not have any significant

impact on the quality of the human

environment.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980, P.L. 96–511, the

agency notes that there are no

information collection requirements

associated with this rulemaking action.

F. Civil Justice Reform

This rule does not have any

retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C.

30103(b), whenever a Federal motor

vehicle safety standard is in effect, a

state or political subdivision thereof

may prescribe or continue in effect a

standard applicable to the same aspect

of performance of a motor vehicle only

if the standard is identical to the Federal

standard. However, a state may

prescribe a standard for a motor vehicle

or equipment obtained for its own use

that imposes a higher performance

requirement than the Federal standard.

49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure

for judicial review of final rules

establishing, amending or revoking

Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

A petition for reconsideration or other

administrative proceedings is not

required before parties may file suit in

court.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor

vehicles, Rubber and rubber products,

Tires.
24570 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

In consideration of the foregoing, 49

CFR Part 571 is amended as follows:

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 1.50.

§ 571.217 [Amended]

2. Section 571.217 is amended by

removing the definition of ‘‘daylight

opening’’ in S4; removing S5.2.1.1;

adding a new definition of ‘‘sliding

window’’ to S4 in alphabetical order;

and by revising S1, S5.2, S5.2.1, S5.2.2,

S5.2.3.1, S5.2.3.2(a) (2) and (3),

S5.2.3.2(c), S5.3.1, S5.3.2 introductory

text, S5.3.3.1 introductory text,

S5.3.3.1(b), S5.3.3.2 introductory text,

and S5.3.3.3 introductory text; S5.4,

S5.4.1, the heading of S5.4.2.1, the

heading of S5.4.2.2, S5.5.1 introductory

text, and S5.5.3(c); and by adding

S5.2.2.1, S5.2.2.2, S5.2.2.3, and

S5.4.2.1(c).

§ 571.217 Standard No. 217; Bus

emergency exits and window retention and

release.

S1. Scope. This standard establishes

requirements for the retention of

windows other than windshields in

buses, and establishes operating forces,

opening dimensions, and markings for

bus emergency exits.

* * * * *

S4. Definitions.

* * * * *

Sliding window means a bus window

designed to open by moving vertically

or horizontally to provide emergency

egress.

* * * * *

S5.2 Provision of emergency exits.

S5.2.1 Buses other than school buses

shall meet the requirements of either

S5.2.2 or S5.2.3. School buses shall

meet the requirements of S5.2.3.

S5.2.2 Buses other than school

buses.

S5.2.2.1 Buses other than school

buses shall provide unobstructed

openings for emergency exit which

collectively amount, in total square

centimeters, to at least 432 times the

number of designated seating positions

on the bus. At least 40 percent of the

total required area of unobstructed

openings, computed in the above

manner, shall be provided on each side

of a bus. However, in determining the

total unobstructed openings provided by

a bus, no emergency exit, regardless of

its area, shall be credited with more

than 3,458 square centimeters of the

total area requirement.

S5.2.2.2 Buses with GVWR of more

than 10,000 pounds. Buses with a

GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds

shall meet the unobstructed openings

requirements in S5.2.2.1 by providing

side exits and at least one rear exit that

conforms to S5.3 through S5.5. The rear

exit shall meet the requirements of S5.3

through S5.5 when the bus is upright

and when the bus is overturned on

either side, with the occupant standing

facing the exit. When the bus

configuration precludes installation of

an accessible rear exit, a roof exit that

meets the requirements of S5.3 through

S5.5 when the bus is overturned on

either side, with the occupant standing

facing the exit, shall be provided in the

rear half of the bus.

S5.2.2.3 Buses with GVWR of 10,000

pounds or less. Buses other than school

buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or

less may meet the unobstructed

openings requirement in S5.2.2.1 by

providing:

(a) Devices that meet the requirements

of S5.3 through S5.5 without using

remote controls or central power

systems;

(b) Windows that can be opened

manually to a position that provides an

opening large enough to admit

unobstructed passage, keeping a major

axis horizontal at all times, of an

ellipsoid generated by rotating about its

minor axis an ellipse having a major

axis of 50 centimeters and a minor axis

of 33 centimeters; or

(c) Doors.

* * * * *

S5.2.3.1. Each school bus shall be

equipped with the exits specified in

either S5.2.3.1(a) or S5.2.3.1(b), chosen

at the option of the manufacturer.

(a) One rear emergency door that

opens outward and is hinged on the

right side (either side in the case of a

bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or

less), and the additional exits, if any,

specified by Table 1.

(b) One emergency door on the

vehicle’s left side that is hinged on its

forward side and meets the

requirements of S5.2.3.2(a), and a pushout rear window that provides a

minimum opening clearance 41

centimeters high and 122 centimeters

wide and meets the requirements of

S5.2.3.2(c), and the additional exits, if

any, specified by Table 2.

TABLE 1

Seating

capacity Additional exits required *

1–45 ...... None.

46–62 .... 1 left side exit door or 2 exit windows.

TABLE 1—Continued

Seating

capacity Additional exits required *

63–70 .... 1 left side exit door or 2 exit windows, and 1 roof exit.

71 and

above.

1 left side exit door or 2 exit windows, and 1 roof exit, and any

combination of door, roof, or

windows such that the total capacity credit specified in Table 3

for these exits, plus 70, is greater than the seating capacity of

the bus.

*Side emergency exit doors must meet the

requirements of S5.2.3.2(a), emergency roof

exits must meet the requirements of

S5.2.3.2(b), emergency window exits must

meet the requirements of S5.2.3.2(c).

TABLE 2

Seating

capacity Additional exits required *

1–57 ...... None.

58–74 .... 1 right side exit door or 2 exit windows.

75–82 .... 1 right side exit door or 2 exit windows, and 1 roof exit.

83 and

above.

1 right side exit door or 2 windows, and 1 roof exit, and any

combination of door, roof, or

windows such that the total capacity credit specified in Table 3

for these exits plus 82 is greater

than the capacity of the bus.

*Side emergency exit doors must meet the

requirements of S5.2.3.2(a), emergency roof

exits must meet the requirements of

S5.2.3.2(b), emergency window exits must

meet the requirements of S5.2.3.2(c).

TABLE 3

Exit Type

Capacity

Credit

Side Door .......................................... 16

Window ............................................. 8

Roof Exit ........................................... 8

(c) The area of an opening equipped

with a wheelchair lift may be credited

toward the required additional exits if it

meets the requirements of paragraphs (a)

or (b) of S5.2.3.1 and if the lift folds or

stows in such a manner that the area is

available for use by persons not needing

the lift. With the lift in the folded or

stowed position, such opening is

considered a side emergency exit door.

S5.2.3.2 * * *

(a) * * *

(2) The first side emergency exit door

installed pursuant to Table 1, shall be

located on the left side of the bus and

as near as practicable to the mid-point

of the passenger compartment. A second

side emergency exit door installed

pursuant to Table 1 shall be located on
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 24571

the right side of the bus. In the case of

a bus equipped with three side

emergency door exits pursuant to Table

1, the third shall be located on the left

side of the bus.

(3) The first side emergency exit door

installed pursuant to Table 2 shall be

located on the right side of the bus. A

second side emergency door exit

installed pursuant to Table 2 shall be

located on the left side of the bus. In the

case of a bus equipped with three side

emergency door exits pursuant to Table

2, the third shall be located on the right

side of the bus.

* * * * *

(c) Emergency exit windows. A bus

equipped with emergency exit windows

shall have an even number of such

windows, not counting the push-out

rear window required by S5.2.3.1(b).

Any side emergency exit windows shall

be evenly divided between the right and

left sides of the bus. School buses shall

not be equipped with horizontallysliding emergency exit windows.

Further, except for buses equipped with

rear push-out emergency exit windows

in accordance with S5.2.3.1(b), school

buses shall not be equipped with both

sliding and push-out emergency exit

windows.

* * * * *

S5.3.1 Each emergency exit not

required by S5.2.3 shall be releasable by

operating one or two mechanisms

located within the regions specified in

Figure 1, Figure 2, or Figure 3. The

lower edge of the region in Figure 1, and

Region B in Figure 2, shall be located 13

centimeters above the adjacent seat, or

5 centimeters above the arm rest, if any,

whichever is higher.

S5.3.2 When tested under the

conditions of S6., both before and after

the window retention test required by

S5.1, each emergency exit not required

by S5.2.3 shall allow manual release of

the exit by a single occupant using force

applications each of which conforms, at

the option of the manufacturer, either to

S5.3.2 (a) or (b) of this section. Each exit

shall have not more than two release

mechanisms. In the case of exits with

one release mechanism, the mechanism

shall require two force applications to

release the exit. In the case of exits with

two release mechanisms, each

mechanism shall require one force

application to release the exit. At least

one of the force applications for each

exit shall differ from the direction of the

initial motion to open the exit by not

less than 90° and no more than 180°.

* * * * *

S5.3.3.1 When tested under the

conditions of S6., both before and after

the window retention test required by

S5.1, each school bus emergency exit

door shall allow manual release of the

door by a single person, from both

inside and outside the passenger

compartment, using a force application

that conforms to S5.3.3.1 (a) through (c)

of this section, except a school bus with

a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less is not

required to conform to S5.3.3.1 (a). The

release mechanism shall operate

without the use of remote controls or

tools, and notwithstanding any failure

of the vehicle’s power system. When the

release mechanism is not in the position

that causes an emergency exit door to be

closed and the vehicle’s ignition is in

the ‘‘on’’ position, a continuous warning

sound shall be audible at the driver’s

seating position and in the vicinity of

the emergency exit door.

* * * * *

(b) Type of motion: Upward from

inside the bus and, at the discretion of

the manufacturer, from outside the bus.

Buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds

or less shall provide interior release

mechanisms that operate by either an

upward or pull-type motion. The pulltype motion shall be used only when

the release mechanism is recessed in

such a manner that the handle, level, or

other activating device, before being

activated, does not protrude beyond the

rim of the recessed receptacle.

* * * * *

S5.3.3.2 When tested under the

conditions of S6., both before and after

the window retention test required by

S5.1, each school bus emergency exit

window shall allow manual release of

the exit by a single person, from inside

the passenger compartment, using not

more than two release mechanisms

located in specified low-force or highforce regions (at the option of the

manufacturer) with force applications

and types of motions that conform to

either S5.3.3.2 (a) or (b) of this section.

In the case of windows with one release

mechanism, the mechanism shall

require two force applications to release

the exit. In the case of windows with

two release mechanisms, each

mechanism shall require one

application to release the exit. At least

one of the force applications for each

window shall differ from the direction

of the initial motion to open the exit by

no less than 90° and no more than 180°.

Each release mechanism shall operate

without the use of remote controls or

tools, and notwithstanding any failure

of the vehicle’s power system. When a

release mechanism is open and the

vehicle’s ignition is in the ‘‘on’’

position, a continuous warning shall be

audible at the drivers seating position

and in the vicinity of that emergency

exit.

* * * * *

S5.3.3.3 When tested under the

conditions of S6., both before and after

the window retention test required by

S5.1, each school bus emergency roof

exit shall allow manual release of the

exit by a single person from both inside

and outside the passenger compartment,

using not more than two release

mechanisms located at specified lowforce or high-force regions (at the option

of the manufacturer) with force

applications and types of motions that

conform either to S5.3.3.3 (a) or (b) of

this section. In the case of roof exits

with one release mechanism, the

mechanism shall require two force

applications to release the exit. In the

case of roof exits with two release

mechanisms, each mechanism shall

require one application to release the

exit. At least one of the force

applications for each roof exit shall

differ from the direction of the initial

push-out motion of the exit by no less

than 90° and no more than 180°.

* * * * *

S5.4 Emergency exit opening.

S5.4.1 After the release mechanism

has been operated, each emergency exit

not required by S5.2.3 shall, under the

conditions of S6., both before and after

the window retention test required by

S5.1, using the reach distances and

corresponding force levels specified in

S5.3.2, allow manual opening by a

single occupant to a position that

provides an opening large enough to

admit unobstructed passage, keeping a

major axis horizontal at all times, of an

ellipsoid generated by rotating about its

minor axis an ellipse having a major

axis of 50 centimeters and a minor axis

of 33 centimeters.

S5.4.2 School bus emergency exit

opening.

S5.4.2.1 School buses with a GVWR

of more than 10,000 pounds.

* * * * *

(c) Emergency exit windows. After the

release mechanism has been operated,

each emergency exit window of a school

bus shall, under the conditions of S6.,

both before and after the window

retention test of S5.1, using force levels

specified in S5.3.3.2, be manually

extendable by a single occupant to a

position that provides an opening large

enough to admit unobstructed passage,

keeping a major axis horizontal at all

times, of an ellipsoid generated by

rotating about its minor axis an ellipse

having a major axis of 50 centimeters

and a minor axis of 33 centimeters.
24572 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

S5.4.2.2 School buses with a GVWR

of 10,000 pounds or less. * * *

* * * * *

S5.5.1 In buses other than school

buses, and except for windows serving

as emergency exits in accordance with

S5.2.2.3(b) and doors in buses with a

GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, each

emergency exit door shall have the

designation ‘‘Emergency Door’’ or

‘‘Emergency Exit,’’ and every other

emergency exit shall have the

designation ‘‘Emergency Exit’’ followed

by concise operating instructions

describing each motion necessary to

unlatch and open the exit, located

within 16 centimeters of the release

mechanism.

* * * * *

S5.5.3 * * *

(c) Each opening for a required

emergency exit shall be outlined around

its outside perimeter with a

retroreflective tape with a minimum

width of 2.5 centimeters and either red,

white, or yellow in color, that when

tested under the conditions specified in

S6.1 of Standard No. 131 (49 CFR

571.131), meets the criteria specified in

Table 1 of that section.

* * * * *

Issued on May 2, 1995.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–11212 Filed 5–8 –95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–58–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 663

[Docket No. 940254–4104; I.D. 042795B]

Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery;

Closure of Whiting At-sea Processing

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Fishing restrictions.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the

prohibition of further processing at-sea

of Pacific whiting at 1400 hours (local

time) on May 4, 1995, based on its

projection that 60 percent (107,000

metric tons (mt)) of the 1995 harvest

guideline for Pacific whiting will have

been harvested by that time. This action

is authorized by the Pacific Coast

Groundfish Fishery Management Plan

and is necessary to provide adequate

amounts of whiting for shoreside

processors and to achieve the allocation

adopted for 1995.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 1400 hours (local time)

May 4, 1995, through 2400 hours (local

time) April 14, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to

William Stelle, Jr., Director, Northwest

Region, National Marine Fisheries

Service, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., BINC15700, Seattle, WA 98115–0070.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William L. Robinson at 206–526–6140.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April

13, 1994, NMFS issued regulations (59

FR 17491) to allocate annually the U.S.

Pacific whiting harvest guideline in the

years 1994 through 1996 between

fishing vessels that either catch and

process at sea or catch and deliver to atsea processors (the at-sea sector) and

fishing vessels that catch and deliver to

processors located on shore (the shorebased sector). In each of the 3 years,

after 60 percent of the annual harvest

guideline (or quota) for Pacific whiting

has been or is projected to be taken,

further at-sea processing of Pacific

whiting in the exclusive economic zone

will be prohibited. The remaining 40

percent of the harvest guideline is

reserved initially for harvest by vessels

delivering to shore-based processors.

The regulations require that the

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

NOAA, announce in the Federal

Register when 60 percent of the whiting

harvest guideline has been, or is about

to be, harvested, specifying a time after

which further at-sea processing of

Pacific whiting in the fishery

management area is prohibited.

The most recent catch data available

on May 2, 1995, indicate that

approximately 92,700 mt of Pacific

whiting have been harvested through

May 1, 1995, and 60 percent (107,000

mt) of the 178,400 mt harvest guideline

for Pacific whiting is projected to be

reached by 1400 hours (local time) on

May 4, 1995.

Secretarial Action

For the reasons given above, and in

accordance with 50 CFR 663.23(b)(4)(i)

and (iv), after 1400 hours (local time) on

May 4, 1995, at-sea processing of Pacific

whiting is prohibited (except for Pacific

whiting that was on board the

processing vessel prior to that time), and

the taking and retaining, or receiving

(except as cargo) of Pacific whiting by

a vessel in the fishery management area

with processed whiting on board is

prohibited. Any vessel used to fish for

whiting for processing at sea must have

its trawl doors on board and attached to

the trawl (50 CFR 663.7(o)).

Classification

The determination that 60 percent of

the harvest guideline is about to be

harvested is based on the most recent

data available. The aggregate data upon

which the determination is based are

available for public inspection at the

Office of the Director, Northwest Region

(see ADDRESSES) during business hours.

This action is taken under the authority

of 50 CFR 663.23 (b)(4)(i) (59 FR 17493–

17494, April 13, 1994), and is exempt

from review under E.O. 12866.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Dated: May 3, 1995.

Richard W. Surdi,

Acting Director, Office of Fisheries

Conservation and Management, National

Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 95–11381 Filed 5–4–95; 1:35 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F