[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 43 (Friday, March 5, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10604-10611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-5510]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[DOT Docket No. NHTSA-99-5157]
RIN 2127-AH03


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Bus Emergency Exits and 
Window Retention and Release

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, NHTSA proposes to amend the Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard on bus emergency exits and window retention and 
release by regulating the location of the anchorages for wheelchair 
securement devices. NHTSA is issuing this proposal to ensure that 
wheelchair securement anchorages and devices cannot be installed, and 
wheelchairs cannot be secured, in locations where they will block 
access to any exit needed for school bus evacuation in the event of an 
emergency. This proposal applies to school buses in which wheelchair 
positions are provided. Nothing in this rulemaking would require that 
wheelchair positions be provided.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that 
Docket Management receives them not later than May 4, 1999.

ADDRESSES: You should mention the docket number of this document in 
your comments and submit your comments in writing to: Docket 
Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., 
20590.
    You may call the Docket at 202-366-9324. You may visit the Docket 
from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Mr. 
Charles Hott, Office of Crashworthiness Standards at (202) 366-0247. 
His FAX number is (202) 493-2739.
    For legal issues, you may call Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of the 
Chief Counsel at (202) 366-2992. Her FAX number is (202) 366-3820.
    You may send mail to both of these officials at National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C., 
20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    NHTSA has long recognized the safety need for school buses to 
provide means for readily accessible emergency egress in the event of a 
crash or other emergency. The agency addressed this safety need by 
issuing Safety Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window 
Retention Release (49 CFR Section 571.217). Standard No. 217 includes 
emergency exit requirements for school buses. The standard requires 
that all new school buses have either (1) one rear emergency door, or 
(2) one emergency door that is located on the vehicle's left side, in 
the rear half of the bus passenger compartment, and that is hinged on 
its forward side and one push-out rear window. (See S5.2.3.1)
    As a result of incidents like the 1988 Carrollton, Kentucky, 
tragedy, in which 27 persons died in a school bus fire following a 
crash, NHTSA amended Standard No. 217 (November 2, 1992, 57 FR 49413) 
by revising the minimum requirements for school bus emergency exits, 
requiring additional emergency exit doors on school buses, and 
improving access to school bus emergency doors. In the final rule, the 
agency stated that the preferred method of providing access to side 
emergency exit doors was through creating a dedicated aisle, and thus, 
S5.4.2.1(2) and Figures 5B and 5C were added to the standard to require 
a 30 centimeter (12 inch) wide aisle to provide access to side 
emergency exit doors.
    In a final rule published on January 15, 1993 (58 FR 4586), NHTSA 
amended

[[Page 10605]]

Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection (49 
CFR Section 571.222) by promulgating minimum safety requirements for 
school buses designed to transport persons in wheelchairs. Wheelchair 
securement devices and occupant restraint systems provided in these 
school buses must meet specified performance requirements. One 
requirement is that the wheelchair securement anchorages at each 
wheelchair securement location must be situated so that a wheelchair 
can be secured in a forward-facing position. Another is that wheelchair 
securement devices must secure wheelchairs at two points on the front 
of each wheelchair and two points on the rear (see S5.4.1.2). The 
amendments to Standard No. 222 did not address the location of 
wheelchair securement anchorages within the school bus itself.
    In April 1996, the State of New York's Department of Transportation 
(NYDOT) asked whether wheelchair positions must meet the clearance 
specifications in S5.4.2.1 (School bus emergency exit opening) of 
Standard No. 217. According to NYDOT, some school districts in New York 
have requested to purchase school buses whose wheelchair anchorages are 
placed in front of emergency exits. This is done apparently to maximize 
the number of seating positions on the school bus. The alternative 
would be to remove school bus seats to make room for the anchorages. 
Use of these wheelchair anchorages may result in wheelchairs being 
placed so as to block the aisle to the emergency exit. New York's 
regulations do not prohibit a school bus emergency exit from being 
blocked with a wheelchair while the bus is in motion. NYDOT officials 
provided schematics from three different bus manufacturers showing 
wheelchair anchorages placed in front of emergency exits.
    The agency has interpreted the existing requirements in Standard 
No. 217 to permit wheelchair anchorages adjacent to emergency exits. In 
response to a letter from Thomas Built Buses asking if it would be a 
violation of Standard No. 217 to place a wheelchair anchorage within 
the clearance area specified by S5.4.2.1 for the rear emergency exit 
door, the agency stated, in a letter of October 28, 1977, that:

    NHTSA will measure the opening using the prescribed 
parallelepiped device as the vehicle is constructed in its unloaded 
condition. Since the wheelchair would not be present when the 
vehicle was in its unloaded condition, your location of the 
wheelchair would not violate the standard.

While this interpretation is consistent with other interpretations 
discussing the conditions under which NHTSA will conduct compliance 
tests, NHTSA is concerned that it could lead to safety problems.

Access to Side Door Emergency Exits and Rear Door Emergency Exits

    Since the initial adoption of the school bus standards, NHTSA has 
conducted rulemaking on two separate occasions to ensure the 
availability and accessibility of school bus exits.

Rear Emergency Exit Door

    Access to the rear emergency exit door was established in a final 
rule of January 27, 1976 (41 FR 3871). The rule established a 45 inch x 
25 inch x 12 inch (1143 mm x 610 mm x 305 mm) space in the rear 
emergency exit door for school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating 
over 4536 kg (10,000 lb.).

Side Emergency Exit Doors

    Side door emergency access requirements were established in a final 
rule of November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413). In specifying a minimum 
dedicated aisle of at least 30 cm, the rule prohibited the placement of 
any seats within the aisle unless the seats have bottoms that 
automatically flip up when unoccupied and assume a vertical position 
outside the aisle.
    In the March 15, 1991 NPRM (56 FR 11153) that preceded the November 
1992 final rule, NHTSA had considered establishing for side doors a 
partially dedicated aisle similar to that for rear emergency exit 
doors. It would have created a partially dedicated aisle by requiring 
the unobstructed passage of a parallelepiped of identical size (45 inch 
x 25 inch x 12 inch) (1143 mm x 610 mm x 305 mm) as the rear door 
opening 12 inches (305 mm) into the passenger compartment. NHTSA 
recognized that the 1143 mm x 610 mm x 305 mm alternative would have 
improved access to the side emergency exit door, but would eliminate 
two seating positions, one next to the side door, and the one 
immediately behind that position. Further, under Standard No. 222, 
School bus passenger seating and crash protection, it would have been 
necessary to provide a barrier in front of the first seating position 
located next to the side of the bus and to the rear of the side door. 
NHTSA expressed its belief that the cost of implementing the 1143 mm x 
610 mm x 305 mm parallelepiped option would be ``considerable.'' (56 FR 
at 11160) Although some public commenters supported adopting the option 
for the side emergency exit door, the agency decided not to adopt it, 
concluding that ``there is not sufficient justification or experience 
to require dedicated aisles.'' (57 FR at 49419).

Safety Need; Proposal

    Although the agency conceded in its 1977 interpretation that the 
standard would permit a wheelchair anchorage to be located in an exit, 
it had not expected that anchorages would actually be installed in this 
way. The rules on rear and side exits established that such exits are 
essential to the safety of bus occupants. The information supplied by 
NYDOT suggests that an amendment to Standard No. 217 is necessary to 
ensure that wheelchairs cannot be secured in a way that defeats the 
purpose of the exit requirements.
    NHTSA is accordingly proposing to amend Standard No. 217 to 
prohibit the placement of wheelchair securement anchorages in the aisle 
of an emergency exit.1 In addition, for any side emergency 
exit door, NHTSA proposes to prohibit placement of any anchorage within 
685 mm (25 inches) on either side from the center of the school bus 
aisle. This aspect of NHTSA's proposal for side emergency exits is 
intended to prevent the placement of anchorages at locations where they 
could be used to secure a wheelchair directly in front of the emergency 
exit. NHTSA is concerned that persons in wheelchairs may be injured by 
persons evacuating the bus. Together, these prohibitions would prevent 
wheelchair securement anchorages and devices from being installed, and 
wheelchairs from being secured, in a location where they would block 
access to an emergency exit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NHTSA notes that since it can regulate only how new school 
buses are manufactured, and not how school buses are used, it cannot 
take the approach of proposing to specify where school bus operators 
place wheelchairs in a school bus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an alternative to an anchorage location requirement, NHTSA is 
requesting comments on whether an information requirement would achieve 
the same result. Rather than proposing a broad prohibition against 
installing any wheelchair securement anchorages in a zone on either 
side of an exit, NHTSA's goals might be achieved by labels. Possible 
regulatory text for the warning to be placed next to each emergency 
exit is set forth below:

    WARNING: It is unsafe to secure a wheelchair in a location where 
the wheelchair blocks the aisle to an exit.

    NHTSA notes that the proposed changes in this notice of proposed 
rulemaking would only apply to those school buses in which wheelchair 
securement locations are provided. Nothing in this proposal would 
require that a school bus have a wheelchair securement location or that 
a manufacturer provide a wheelchair securement location on a school 
bus.

[[Page 10606]]

This proposal does not apply to wheelchair lift doors that are not 
considered emergency exits.
    NHTSA seeks public comment--
    1. On the extent to which school buses have been or are being 
designed so that wheelchairs can be secured so as to hinder access to 
any emergency exit.
    2. On whether the proposed regulatory language would achieve the 
desired result of preventing wheelchair securement anchorages and 
devices and wheelchairs from being positioned so that they block access 
to the emergency exit.
    3. On whether the proposed regulatory language could be more 
narrowly crafted so that, for instance, it would not prohibit 
wheelchair securement anchorages from being installed just forward of a 
side emergency exit if the wheelchair securement devices attached to 
those anchorages could be used only for the purpose of installing a 
wheelchair forward of those anchorages, and thus forward of the exit 
aisle as well. An example of such language is set forth below:
    ``A school bus shall not have a wheelchair securement device that 
can be used, in combination with other wheelchair securement devices 
installed in the bus, to secure a wheelchair so that any portion of the 
wheelchair is located within the area defined--
    (a) on the front side, by a transverse vertical plane tangent to 
the front edge of a side exit door,
    (b) on the back side, by a transverse vertical plane tangent to the 
rear edge of that door,
    (c) on the outboard side, by the plane of the doorway opening, and
    (d) on the inboard side, by a longitudinal vertical plane passing 
through the longitudinal centerline of the bus.''
    4. On the extent to which seating capacity (both wheelchair and 
non-wheelchair) would be reduced in any school buses produced in the 
future if this proposal were made final.
    5. Whether the need for safety would be met if, in lieu of the 
restrictions on wheelchair anchorages proposed in this NPRM, NHTSA were 
to require placing labels on schoolbuses with wheelchair locations that 
state it is unsafe to use a wheelchair securement device to secure a 
wheelchair in a location where the wheelchair blocks the aisle to an 
exit. Would the possibility of tort actions based on those labels 
effectively discourage the securing of wheelchairs in emergency exit 
aisles?
    6. Should NHTSA both require a warning label and prohibit the 
installation of wheelchair securement devices that make it possible to 
secure wheelchair in an area where it will block access to an emergency 
exit?
    7. NHTSA seeks comment on whether these requirements should apply 
to all buses. If so, how can this be incorporated into the regulatory 
text? NHTSA is not aware of any other bus types that are manufactured 
with devices designed to secure wheelchairs that will block access to 
an emergency exit.
    In addition to the above, the agency is also proposing to amend the 
regulatory text in S5.4.2.1(a)(1) to clarify that the bottom 
parallelepiped is to fit entirely within the door of the school bus. 
The current language specifies that the parallelepiped be in contact 
with the school bus floor at all times. Previous agency interpretations 
have indicated that this means that the rearmost surface of the 
parallelepiped be tangent to the plane of the rear emergency door 
opening.

Leadtime

    NHTSA proposes that the proposed amendments, if made final, would 
take effect one year after the publication of the final rule. NHTSA 
believes one year is enough lead time for industry to make any 
necessary change. Manufacturers of school buses with wheelchair 
positions would be given the option of complying immediately with the 
new requirements. If this proposal were made final, NHTSA would 
encourage manufacturers to comply as soon as possible.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' 
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    We have considered the impact of this rulemaking action under 
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory 
policies and procedures. This rule is not considered a significant 
regulatory action under section 3(f) of the Executive Order 12866. 
Consequently, it was not reviewed by the Office of Management and 
Budget. This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review.'' The rulemaking action is also not considered to be 
significant under the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures 
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
    For the following reasons, NHTSA believes that this proposal, if 
made final, would not have any cost effect on school bus manufacturers. 
When it amended Standard No. 222 to specify requirements for wheelchair 
securement anchorages and devices, NHTSA never envisioned that the 
anchorages would be placed so that wheelchair securement anchorages and 
devices or secured wheelchairs would block access to any exit. In 
analyzing the potential impacts of that rulemaking, NHTSA anticipated 
that vehicle manufacturers would, if necessary, remove seats to make 
room for securing wheelchairs in a forward-facing position and that, if 
necessary, additional buses would be purchased to offset the lost 
seating capacity. To the extent that vehicle manufacturers have not 
removed any seats and have instead installed wheelchair securement 
anchorages and devices in locations where the securing of wheelchairs 
will result in the blocking of exits, the agency overestimated the 
costs of that earlier rulemaking. If securement devices were being so 
installed, the impacts of adopting the amendments proposed in this 
notice would be to conform vehicle manufacturer practices to the 
assumptions made in the analysis of that earlier rulemaking.
    Because the economic impacts of this proposal are so minimal, no 
further regulatory evaluation is necessary.

Executive Order 12612

    We have analyzed this proposal in accordance with Executive Order 
12612 (``Federalism''). We have determined that this proposal does not 
have sufficient Federalism impacts to warrant the preparation of a 
federalism assessment.

[[Page 10607]]

Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health or 
safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives considered by us.
    This rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not 
economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866. It does involve 
decisions based on health risks that disproportionately affect children 
on schoolbuses. However, this rulemaking serves to reduce, rather than 
increase, that risk.

Executive Order 12778

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12778, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' we 
have considered whether this proposed rule would have any retroactive 
effect. We conclude that it would not have such an effect. Under 49 
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in 
effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable 
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal 
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a 
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for 
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial 
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a 
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before 
parties may file suit in court.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of 
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a 
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    The Administrator has considered the effects of this rulemaking 
action under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Sec. 601 et seq.) 
and certifies that this proposal would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rationale for 
this certification is that, as noted immediately above, NHTSA is not 
aware that any school bus manufacturer, or any small school bus 
manufacturer, is presently manufacturing school buses with wheelchair 
securement anchorages or devices that may result in blocking access to 
an emergency exit, or that any small school or school district has 
school buses with wheelchair securement anchorages or devices that may 
result in blocking access to an emergency door. Accordingly, the agency 
believes that this proposal would not affect the costs of the 
manufacturers of school buses considered to be small business entities. 
A small manufacturer could meet the new requirements by placing a 
wheelchair securement anchorage or device in a location other than in 
an exit aisle. Changing the placement of a wheelchair securement 
anchorage or device in this fashion might necessitate the removal of a 
seat in some cases. In those instances, there would be a small net loss 
of passenger capacity.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not, therefore, require a 
regulatory flexibility analysis.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have analyzed this proposal for the purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have any 
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not 
required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency 
unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This 
proposal does not propose any new information collection requirements. 
If we issue a final rule that requires a label, we will obtain the 
necessary clearance under the PRA.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) 
directs us to use voluntary consensus standards in our regulatory 
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive 
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, 
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable 
voluntary consensus standards.
    After conducting a search of available sources, we have determined 
that there are no available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards that we can use in this notice of proposed rulemaking. We 
have searched the SAE's Recommended Practices applicable to buses, and 
have found no standards prohibiting placement of wheelchairs in front 
of emergency exit doors. We have also reviewed the National Standards 
for School Buses and School Bus Operations (NSSBSBO) (1995 Revised 
Edition). The NSSBSBO includes a subsection under ``Standards for 
Specially Equipped School Buses'' called ``Securement and Restraint 
System for Wheelchair/Mobility Aid and Occupant.'' Paragraph 1.k. of 
this provision (on page 61) states: ``The securement and restraint 
system shall be located and installed such that when an occupied 
wheelchair/mobility aid is secured, it does not block access to the 
lift door.'' Since this provision does not address blocking access to 
an emergency exit, we have decided not to use it in the rulemaking at 
issue.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more 
than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base 
year of 1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written 
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to 
identify and

[[Page 10608]]

consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the 
least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do 
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if we 
publish with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not 
adopted.
    This proposal would not result in costs of $100 million or more to 
either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the 
private sector. Thus, this proposal is not subject to the requirements 
of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center 
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may 
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document 
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

Comments

How do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). 
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary 
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary 
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length 
of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the 
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under 
ADDRESSES.

How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of 
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the 
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket 
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should 
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential 
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above 
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed 
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover 
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential 
business information regulation. (49 CFR Part 512.)

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives 
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated 
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider 
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket 
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider it in 
developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider 
that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the 
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are 
indicated above in the same location.
    You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments 
on the Internet, take the following steps:
    1. Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the 
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
    2. On that page, click on ``search.''
    3. On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the four-
digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. Example: 
If the docket number were ``NHTSA-1998-1234,'' you would type ``1234.'' 
After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
    4. On the next page, which contains docket summary information for 
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may 
download the comments. However, since the comments are imaged 
documents, instead of word processing documents, the downloaded 
comments are not word searchable.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will 
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber 
products, Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed that the Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (49 CFR Part 571), be amended as set 
forth below.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for part 571 would continue to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.


Sec. 571.217  [Amended]

    2. Section 571.217 would be amended by adding in S4, in 
alphabetical order, the definitions of ``wheelchair'', ``wheelchair 
securement anchorage'', and ``wheelchair securement device'' , by 
revising S5.4.2.1(a)(1) and by adding S5.4.3 to read as follows:


Sec. 571.217  Standard No. 217; Bus emergency exits and window 
retention and release.

* * * * *
    S4. * * *
    Wheelchair means a wheeled seat frame for the support and 
conveyance of a physically disabled person, comprised of at least a 
frame, seat, and wheels.
    Wheelchair securement anchorage means the provision for 
transferring wheelchair securement device loads to the vehicle 
structure.
    Wheelchair securement device means a strap, webbing or other device 
used for securing a wheelchair to the school bus, including all 
necessary buckles and other fasteners.
* * * * *
    S5.4.2.1 * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) In the case of a rear emergency exit door, an opening large 
enough to permit unobstructed passage into the bus of a rectangular 
parallelepiped 1143 millimeters high, 610 millimeters wide, and 305 
millimeters deep, keeping the 1143 millimeter dimension vertical, the 
610 millimeters dimension parallel to

[[Page 10609]]

the opening, and the lower surface in contact with the floor of the bus 
at all times, until the rear most surface of the parallelepiped is 
tangent to the plane of the door; and
* * * * *
    S5.4.3 No portion of a wheelchair securement anchorage shall be 
located in a schoolbus such that:
    (1) In the case of side emergency exit doors, any portion of the 
wheelchair securement anchorage is within the area bounded by 435 mm 
(17 inches) forward and rearward of the center of the side emergency 
exit door aisle, as shown in Figure 6A.
    (2) In the case of rear emergency exit doors, any portion of the 
wheelchair securement anchorage is within the space bounded by a 
rectangular parallelepiped that is 1143 mm high, 610 mm wide, and 305 
mm deep and that is placed anywhere in the door opening, keeping the 
1143 mm dimension vertical, 610 mm dimension parallel to the opening, 
the lower surface in contact with the floor of the bus, and the 
rearmost surface tangent to the plane of the door opening, as shown in 
Figure 6B.
* * * * *
    3. Section 571.217 would be amended by adding after Figure 5C, 
Figure 6A and Figure 6B, to read as follows:

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 10610]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MR99.024



[[Page 10611]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MR99.025



    Issued: March 2, 1999.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 99-5510 Filed 3-4-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C