[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 43 (Friday, March 5, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10604-10611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-5510]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[DOT Docket No. NHTSA-99-5157]
RIN 2127-AH03
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Bus Emergency Exits and
Window Retention and Release
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, NHTSA proposes to amend the Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard on bus emergency exits and window retention and
release by regulating the location of the anchorages for wheelchair
securement devices. NHTSA is issuing this proposal to ensure that
wheelchair securement anchorages and devices cannot be installed, and
wheelchairs cannot be secured, in locations where they will block
access to any exit needed for school bus evacuation in the event of an
emergency. This proposal applies to school buses in which wheelchair
positions are provided. Nothing in this rulemaking would require that
wheelchair positions be provided.
DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that
Docket Management receives them not later than May 4, 1999.
ADDRESSES: You should mention the docket number of this document in
your comments and submit your comments in writing to: Docket
Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.,
20590.
You may call the Docket at 202-366-9324. You may visit the Docket
from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Mr.
Charles Hott, Office of Crashworthiness Standards at (202) 366-0247.
His FAX number is (202) 493-2739.
For legal issues, you may call Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of the
Chief Counsel at (202) 366-2992. Her FAX number is (202) 366-3820.
You may send mail to both of these officials at National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C.,
20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
NHTSA has long recognized the safety need for school 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 (49 CFR Section 571.217). Standard No. 217 includes
emergency exit requirements for school buses. The standard requires
that all new school buses have either (1) one rear emergency door, or
(2) one emergency door that is located on the vehicle's left side, in
the rear half of the bus passenger compartment, and that is hinged on
its forward side and one push-out rear window. (See S5.2.3.1)
As a result of incidents like the 1988 Carrollton, Kentucky,
tragedy, in which 27 persons died in a school bus fire following a
crash, NHTSA amended Standard No. 217 (November 2, 1992, 57 FR 49413)
by revising the minimum requirements for school bus emergency exits,
requiring additional emergency exit doors on school buses, and
improving access to school bus emergency doors. In the final rule, the
agency stated that the preferred method of providing access to side
emergency exit doors was through creating a dedicated aisle, and thus,
S5.4.2.1(2) and Figures 5B and 5C were added to the standard to require
a 30 centimeter (12 inch) wide aisle to provide access to side
emergency exit doors.
In a final rule published on January 15, 1993 (58 FR 4586), NHTSA
amended
[[Page 10605]]
Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection (49
CFR Section 571.222) by promulgating minimum safety requirements for
school buses designed to transport persons in wheelchairs. Wheelchair
securement devices and occupant restraint systems provided in these
school buses must meet specified performance requirements. One
requirement is that the wheelchair securement anchorages at each
wheelchair securement location must be situated so that a wheelchair
can be secured in a forward-facing position. Another is that wheelchair
securement devices must secure wheelchairs at two points on the front
of each wheelchair and two points on the rear (see S5.4.1.2). The
amendments to Standard No. 222 did not address the location of
wheelchair securement anchorages within the school bus itself.
In April 1996, the State of New York's Department of Transportation
(NYDOT) asked whether wheelchair positions must meet the clearance
specifications in S5.4.2.1 (School bus emergency exit opening) of
Standard No. 217. According to NYDOT, some school districts in New York
have requested to purchase school buses whose wheelchair anchorages are
placed in front of emergency exits. This is done apparently to maximize
the number of seating positions on the school bus. The alternative
would be to remove school bus seats to make room for the anchorages.
Use of these wheelchair anchorages may result in wheelchairs being
placed so as to block the aisle to the emergency exit. New York's
regulations do not prohibit a school bus emergency exit from being
blocked with a wheelchair while the bus is in motion. NYDOT officials
provided schematics from three different bus manufacturers showing
wheelchair anchorages placed in front of emergency exits.
The agency has interpreted the existing requirements in Standard
No. 217 to permit wheelchair anchorages adjacent to emergency exits. In
response to a letter from Thomas Built Buses asking if it would be a
violation of Standard No. 217 to place a wheelchair anchorage within
the clearance area specified by S5.4.2.1 for the rear emergency exit
door, the agency stated, in a letter of October 28, 1977, that:
NHTSA will measure the opening using the prescribed
parallelepiped device as the vehicle is constructed in its unloaded
condition. Since the wheelchair would not be present when the
vehicle was in its unloaded condition, your location of the
wheelchair would not violate the standard.
While this interpretation is consistent with other interpretations
discussing the conditions under which NHTSA will conduct compliance
tests, NHTSA is concerned that it could lead to safety problems.
Access to Side Door Emergency Exits and Rear Door Emergency Exits
Since the initial adoption of the school bus standards, NHTSA has
conducted rulemaking on two separate occasions to ensure the
availability and accessibility of school bus exits.
Rear Emergency Exit Door
Access to the rear emergency exit door was established in a final
rule of January 27, 1976 (41 FR 3871). The rule established a 45 inch x
25 inch x 12 inch (1143 mm x 610 mm x 305 mm) space in the rear
emergency exit door for school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating
over 4536 kg (10,000 lb.).
Side Emergency Exit Doors
Side door emergency access requirements were established in a final
rule of November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413). In specifying a minimum
dedicated aisle of at least 30 cm, the rule prohibited the placement of
any seats within the aisle unless the seats have bottoms that
automatically flip up when unoccupied and assume a vertical position
outside the aisle.
In the March 15, 1991 NPRM (56 FR 11153) that preceded the November
1992 final rule, NHTSA had considered establishing for side doors a
partially dedicated aisle similar to that for rear emergency exit
doors. It would have created a partially dedicated aisle by requiring
the unobstructed passage of a parallelepiped of identical size (45 inch
x 25 inch x 12 inch) (1143 mm x 610 mm x 305 mm) as the rear door
opening 12 inches (305 mm) into the passenger compartment. NHTSA
recognized that the 1143 mm x 610 mm x 305 mm alternative would have
improved access to the side emergency exit door, but would eliminate
two seating positions, one next to the side door, and the one
immediately behind that position. Further, under Standard No. 222,
School bus passenger seating and crash protection, it would have been
necessary to provide a barrier in front of the first seating position
located next to the side of the bus and to the rear of the side door.
NHTSA expressed its belief that the cost of implementing the 1143 mm x
610 mm x 305 mm parallelepiped option would be ``considerable.'' (56 FR
at 11160) Although some public commenters supported adopting the option
for the side emergency exit door, the agency decided not to adopt it,
concluding that ``there is not sufficient justification or experience
to require dedicated aisles.'' (57 FR at 49419).
Safety Need; Proposal
Although the agency conceded in its 1977 interpretation that the
standard would permit a wheelchair anchorage to be located in an exit,
it had not expected that anchorages would actually be installed in this
way. The rules on rear and side exits established that such exits are
essential to the safety of bus occupants. The information supplied by
NYDOT suggests that an amendment to Standard No. 217 is necessary to
ensure that wheelchairs cannot be secured in a way that defeats the
purpose of the exit requirements.
NHTSA is accordingly proposing to amend Standard No. 217 to
prohibit the placement of wheelchair securement anchorages in the aisle
of an emergency exit.1 In addition, for any side emergency
exit door, NHTSA proposes to prohibit placement of any anchorage within
685 mm (25 inches) on either side from the center of the school bus
aisle. This aspect of NHTSA's proposal for side emergency exits is
intended to prevent the placement of anchorages at locations where they
could be used to secure a wheelchair directly in front of the emergency
exit. NHTSA is concerned that persons in wheelchairs may be injured by
persons evacuating the bus. Together, these prohibitions would prevent
wheelchair securement anchorages and devices from being installed, and
wheelchairs from being secured, in a location where they would block
access to an emergency exit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NHTSA notes that since it can regulate only how new school
buses are manufactured, and not how school buses are used, it cannot
take the approach of proposing to specify where school bus operators
place wheelchairs in a school bus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an alternative to an anchorage location requirement, NHTSA is
requesting comments on whether an information requirement would achieve
the same result. Rather than proposing a broad prohibition against
installing any wheelchair securement anchorages in a zone on either
side of an exit, NHTSA's goals might be achieved by labels. Possible
regulatory text for the warning to be placed next to each emergency
exit is set forth below:
WARNING: It is unsafe to secure a wheelchair in a location where
the wheelchair blocks the aisle to an exit.
NHTSA notes that the proposed changes in this notice of proposed
rulemaking would only apply to those school buses in which wheelchair
securement locations are provided. Nothing in this proposal would
require that a school bus have a wheelchair securement location or that
a manufacturer provide a wheelchair securement location on a school
bus.
[[Page 10606]]
This proposal does not apply to wheelchair lift doors that are not
considered emergency exits.
NHTSA seeks public comment--
1. On the extent to which school buses have been or are being
designed so that wheelchairs can be secured so as to hinder access to
any emergency exit.
2. On whether the proposed regulatory language would achieve the
desired result of preventing wheelchair securement anchorages and
devices and wheelchairs from being positioned so that they block access
to the emergency exit.
3. On whether the proposed regulatory language could be more
narrowly crafted so that, for instance, it would not prohibit
wheelchair securement anchorages from being installed just forward of a
side emergency exit if the wheelchair securement devices attached to
those anchorages could be used only for the purpose of installing a
wheelchair forward of those anchorages, and thus forward of the exit
aisle as well. An example of such language is set forth below:
``A school bus shall not have a wheelchair securement device that
can be used, in combination with other wheelchair securement devices
installed in the bus, to secure a wheelchair so that any portion of the
wheelchair is located within the area defined--
(a) on the front side, by a transverse vertical plane tangent to
the front edge of a side exit door,
(b) on the back side, by a transverse vertical plane tangent to the
rear edge of that door,
(c) on the outboard side, by the plane of the doorway opening, and
(d) on the inboard side, by a longitudinal vertical plane passing
through the longitudinal centerline of the bus.''
4. On the extent to which seating capacity (both wheelchair and
non-wheelchair) would be reduced in any school buses produced in the
future if this proposal were made final.
5. Whether the need for safety would be met if, in lieu of the
restrictions on wheelchair anchorages proposed in this NPRM, NHTSA were
to require placing labels on schoolbuses with wheelchair locations that
state it is unsafe to use a wheelchair securement device to secure a
wheelchair in a location where the wheelchair blocks the aisle to an
exit. Would the possibility of tort actions based on those labels
effectively discourage the securing of wheelchairs in emergency exit
aisles?
6. Should NHTSA both require a warning label and prohibit the
installation of wheelchair securement devices that make it possible to
secure wheelchair in an area where it will block access to an emergency
exit?
7. NHTSA seeks comment on whether these requirements should apply
to all buses. If so, how can this be incorporated into the regulatory
text? NHTSA is not aware of any other bus types that are manufactured
with devices designed to secure wheelchairs that will block access to
an emergency exit.
In addition to the above, the agency is also proposing to amend the
regulatory text in S5.4.2.1(a)(1) to clarify that the bottom
parallelepiped is to fit entirely within the door of the school bus.
The current language specifies that the parallelepiped be in contact
with the school bus floor at all times. Previous agency interpretations
have indicated that this means that the rearmost surface of the
parallelepiped be tangent to the plane of the rear emergency door
opening.
Leadtime
NHTSA proposes that the proposed amendments, if made final, would
take effect one year after the publication of the final rule. NHTSA
believes one year is enough lead time for industry to make any
necessary change. Manufacturers of school buses with wheelchair
positions would be given the option of complying immediately with the
new requirements. If this proposal were made final, NHTSA would
encourage manufacturers to comply as soon as possible.
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action''
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
We have considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures. This rule is not considered a significant
regulatory action under section 3(f) of the Executive Order 12866.
Consequently, it was not reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget. This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review.'' The rulemaking action is also not considered to be
significant under the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
For the following reasons, NHTSA believes that this proposal, if
made final, would not have any cost effect on school bus manufacturers.
When it amended Standard No. 222 to specify requirements for wheelchair
securement anchorages and devices, NHTSA never envisioned that the
anchorages would be placed so that wheelchair securement anchorages and
devices or secured wheelchairs would block access to any exit. In
analyzing the potential impacts of that rulemaking, NHTSA anticipated
that vehicle manufacturers would, if necessary, remove seats to make
room for securing wheelchairs in a forward-facing position and that, if
necessary, additional buses would be purchased to offset the lost
seating capacity. To the extent that vehicle manufacturers have not
removed any seats and have instead installed wheelchair securement
anchorages and devices in locations where the securing of wheelchairs
will result in the blocking of exits, the agency overestimated the
costs of that earlier rulemaking. If securement devices were being so
installed, the impacts of adopting the amendments proposed in this
notice would be to conform vehicle manufacturer practices to the
assumptions made in the analysis of that earlier rulemaking.
Because the economic impacts of this proposal are so minimal, no
further regulatory evaluation is necessary.
Executive Order 12612
We have analyzed this proposal in accordance with Executive Order
12612 (``Federalism''). We have determined that this proposal does not
have sufficient Federalism impacts to warrant the preparation of a
federalism assessment.
[[Page 10607]]
Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health or
safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by us.
This rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not
economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866. It does involve
decisions based on health risks that disproportionately affect children
on schoolbuses. However, this rulemaking serves to reduce, rather than
increase, that risk.
Executive Order 12778
Pursuant to Executive Order 12778, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' we
have considered whether this proposed rule would have any retroactive
effect. We conclude that it would not have such an effect. Under 49
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before
parties may file suit in court.
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).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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.
The Administrator has considered the effects of this rulemaking
action under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Sec. 601 et seq.)
and certifies that this proposal would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rationale for
this certification is that, as noted immediately above, NHTSA is not
aware that any school bus manufacturer, or any small school bus
manufacturer, is presently manufacturing school buses with wheelchair
securement anchorages or devices that may result in blocking access to
an emergency exit, or that any small school or school district has
school buses with wheelchair securement anchorages or devices that may
result in blocking access to an emergency door. Accordingly, the agency
believes that this proposal would not affect the costs of the
manufacturers of school buses considered to be small business entities.
A small manufacturer could meet the new requirements by placing a
wheelchair securement anchorage or device in a location other than in
an exit aisle. Changing the placement of a wheelchair securement
anchorage or device in this fashion might necessitate the removal of a
seat in some cases. In those instances, there would be a small net loss
of passenger capacity.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not, therefore, require a
regulatory flexibility analysis.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have analyzed this proposal for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have any
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 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
proposal does not propose any new information collection requirements.
If we issue a final rule that requires a label, we will obtain the
necessary clearance under the PRA.
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272)
directs us to use voluntary consensus standards in our regulatory
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. 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 us to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
After conducting a search of available sources, we have determined
that there are no available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards that we can use in this notice of proposed rulemaking. We
have searched the SAE's Recommended Practices applicable to buses, and
have found no standards prohibiting placement of wheelchairs in front
of emergency exit doors. We have also reviewed the National Standards
for School Buses and School Bus Operations (NSSBSBO) (1995 Revised
Edition). The NSSBSBO includes a subsection under ``Standards for
Specially Equipped School Buses'' called ``Securement and Restraint
System for Wheelchair/Mobility Aid and Occupant.'' Paragraph 1.k. of
this provision (on page 61) states: ``The securement and restraint
system shall be located and installed such that when an occupied
wheelchair/mobility aid is secured, it does not block access to the
lift door.'' Since this provision does not address blocking access to
an emergency exit, we have decided not to use it in the rulemaking at
issue.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires Federal 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 $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base
year of 1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to
identify and
[[Page 10608]]
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if we
publish with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not
adopted.
This proposal would not result in costs of $100 million or more to
either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the
private sector. Thus, this proposal is not subject to the requirements
of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
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.
Comments
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.
Please submit two copies of your comments, including the
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under
ADDRESSES.
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 two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to Docket Management 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 that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider it 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 Docket Management 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, take the following steps:
1. Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
2. On that page, click on ``search.''
3. On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the four-
digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. Example:
If the docket number were ``NHTSA-1998-1234,'' you would type ``1234.''
After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
4. On the next page, which contains docket summary information for
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may
download the comments. However, since the comments are imaged
documents, instead of word processing documents, the downloaded
comments are not word searchable.
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.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber
products, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed that the Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (49 CFR Part 571), be amended as set
forth below.
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 571 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Sec. 571.217 [Amended]
2. Section 571.217 would be amended by adding in S4, in
alphabetical order, the definitions of ``wheelchair'', ``wheelchair
securement anchorage'', and ``wheelchair securement device'' , by
revising S5.4.2.1(a)(1) and by adding S5.4.3 to read as follows:
Sec. 571.217 Standard No. 217; Bus emergency exits and window
retention and release.
* * * * *
S4. * * *
Wheelchair means a wheeled seat frame for the support and
conveyance of a physically disabled person, comprised of at least a
frame, seat, and wheels.
Wheelchair securement anchorage means the provision for
transferring wheelchair securement device loads to the vehicle
structure.
Wheelchair securement device means a strap, webbing or other device
used for securing a wheelchair to the school bus, including all
necessary buckles and other fasteners.
* * * * *
S5.4.2.1 * * *
(a) * * *
(1) In the case of a rear emergency exit door, an opening large
enough to permit unobstructed passage into the bus of a rectangular
parallelepiped 1143 millimeters high, 610 millimeters wide, and 305
millimeters deep, keeping the 1143 millimeter dimension vertical, the
610 millimeters dimension parallel to
[[Page 10609]]
the opening, and the lower surface in contact with the floor of the bus
at all times, until the rear most surface of the parallelepiped is
tangent to the plane of the door; and
* * * * *
S5.4.3 No portion of a wheelchair securement anchorage shall be
located in a schoolbus such that:
(1) In the case of side emergency exit doors, any portion of the
wheelchair securement anchorage is within the area bounded by 435 mm
(17 inches) forward and rearward of the center of the side emergency
exit door aisle, as shown in Figure 6A.
(2) In the case of rear emergency exit doors, any portion of the
wheelchair securement anchorage is within the space bounded by a
rectangular parallelepiped that is 1143 mm high, 610 mm wide, and 305
mm deep and that is placed anywhere in the door opening, keeping the
1143 mm dimension vertical, 610 mm dimension parallel to the opening,
the lower surface in contact with the floor of the bus, and the
rearmost surface tangent to the plane of the door opening, as shown in
Figure 6B.
* * * * *
3. Section 571.217 would be amended by adding after Figure 5C,
Figure 6A and Figure 6B, to read as follows:
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 10610]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MR99.024
[[Page 10611]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MR99.025
Issued: March 2, 1999.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 99-5510 Filed 3-4-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
