[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