95-11212. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release  

  • [Federal Register Volume 60, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 9, 1995)]
    [Rules and Regulations]
    [Pages 24562-24572]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 95-11212]
    
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
    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 [[Page 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 
    non-school 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 non-school 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 
    non-school 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 deg. to 180 deg.. 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 
    [[Page 24564]] 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. [[Page 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 Salem-Keizer 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, 
    [[Page 24566]] 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 non-school 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.
    [[Page 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 
    non-school 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 (9\1/
    4\'' vs. 8\1/4\''), 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                                
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Capacity
                              Exit type                              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- [[Page 24568]] 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 non-school bus requirements. NHTSA noted that 
    the FMCSRs require all buses, including school buses, to meet the 
    Standard No. 217 requirements for non-school 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 non-school 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 non-school 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 
    non-school 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 [[Page 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 push-out 
    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 non-school bus requiring retrofitting 
    of eight push-out windows will realize a per-vehicle 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. [[Page 24570]] 
    
    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. Secs. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
    delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
    
    
    Sec. 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).
    
    
    Sec. 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 push-
    out 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.                            
    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                                
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Capacity
                               Exit Type                             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 [[Page 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 horizontally-sliding 
    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 deg. and no more 
    than 180 deg..
    * * * * *
        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 pull-type 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 high-
    force 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 deg. and no more than 180 deg.. 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 low-force 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 deg. and no more than 180 deg..
    * * * * *
        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. [[Page 24572]] 
        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
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
5/9/1996
Published:
05/09/1995
Department:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Entry Type:
Rule
Action:
Final rule.
Document Number:
95-11212
Dates:
This final rule is effective May 9, 1996.
Pages:
24562-24572 (11 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Docket No. 88-21, Notice No. 09
PDF File:
95-11212.pdf
CFR: (1)
49 CFR 571.217