[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