[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 77 (Tuesday, April 22, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19752-19754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-10040]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[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), 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: On April 19, 2002, NHTSA published a final rule that amended 
the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on bus emergency exits and 
window retention and release, and specified an effective date of April 
21, 2003 for the amendments made by the rule. Petitions for 
reconsideration of the rule were submitted to the agency. This document 
delays the effective date of the final rule one year to allow the 
agency more time to respond to those petitions.

DATES: Effective April 18, 2003 the effective date of the final rule 
published on April 19, 2002 (67 FR 19343) is delayed until April 21, 
2004.
    Any petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must be 
received by NHTSA not later than June 6, 2003

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket 
number for this action and be submitted to: Administrator, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., 
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues you may call: Mr. 
Charles Hott, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, at (202) 366-0247. 
Mr. Hott's 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 the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 
217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, (49 CFR 
Sec.  571.217) (FMVSS No. 217), specifies requirements for the 
retention of windows other than windshields in buses, and for operating 
forces, opening dimensions, and markings for bus emergency exits. The 
purpose of FMVSS No. 217 is to minimize the likelihood of occupants 
being thrown from the bus in a crash and to provide a means of readily 
accessible emergency egress.

Final Rule

    On April 19, 2002 (67 FR 19343)(DMS Docket No. NHTSA-99-5157), 
NHTSA published a final rule amending FMVSS No. 217 to reduce the 
likelihood that wheelchair securement anchorages in new school buses 
will be installed in locations that permit wheelchairs to be secured 
where they would block access to emergency exit doors. For side 
emergency exit door, the final rule restricts wheelchair securement 
anchorages from being placed in an area bounded by transverse vertical 
planes 305 mm (12 inches) forward and rearward of the center of the 
door aisle. For a rear emergency exit door, the final rule restricts 
wheelchair securement anchorages from being placed in an area bounded 
by a horizontal plane 1,145 mm (45 inches) above the bus floor and a 
transverse vertical plane either 305 mm (12 inches) forward of the 
bottom edge of the door opening within the bus occupant space (for 
school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) over 4,536 kg 
(10,000 lb)) or 150 mm (6 inches) forward of the bottom edge of the 
door opening within the bus occupant space (for school buses with a 
GVWR of 4,536 kg or less).
    The final rule also provides that emergency exit doors and 
emergency exit windows currently required to be labeled as an 
``Emergency Door'' or ``Emergency Exit'' must also bear a label saying 
``DO NOT BLOCK''. The agency said that access to these doors and exits 
should never be blocked with wheelchairs or other items, such as book 
bags, knapsacks, sports equipment or band equipment.
    The final rule specified an effective date of April 21, 2003 for 
these amendments.

Petitions for Reconsideration

    In late May 2002, NHTSA received petitions for reconsideration of 
the April 19, 2002 final rule from three school bus manufacturers: 
Thomas Built Buses, American Transportation Corporation (now known as 
IC Corporation), and Blue Bird Body Company. The three petitioners 
requested reconsideration of the final rule's use of transverse 
vertical and horizontal planes to define the volumes around the side 
and rear emergency exit doors where wheelchair anchorages may not be 
located. All three companies stated that the volumes should instead be 
defined using ``the rectangular parallelepiped fixture.''
    The petitioners also raised other issues for reconsideration. They 
requested clarification of whether the warning label specified in the 
final rule is required for both emergency exit doors and emergency exit 
windows or emergency exit doors only. They asked whether the warning, 
``DO NOT BLOCK,'' is intended to refer to wheelchairs only or other 
items as well, such as child restraint systems. In addition, Thomas 
Built asked NHTSA to revise Figure 6C to clarify whether emergency 
exits not required by FMVSS No. 217 must meet FMVSS No. 217 emergency 
exit requirements.
    Finally, Thomas Built also asked about the ellipsoid used for 
assessing the area of unobstructed openings through windows.\1\ With 
respect to the final rule's reference to the ``ellipsoid generated by 
rotating about its minor axis an ellipse having a major axis of 50 
centimeters and a minor axis of 33 centimeters,'' Thomas Built asked 
whether any major axis of the ellipse could be held in a horizontal 
position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The final rule did not add, remove or other amend language 
regarding the use of an ellipsoid for assessing the area of 
unobstructed openings through windows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Delay of Effective Date

    In a letter dated January 29, 2003, Blue Bird Body Corporation 
asked for the agency's interpretation of several requirements adopted 
in the final rule. Blue Bird also requested NHTSA to delay the 
effective date of the rule by a year. Blue Bird asked for a one-year 
delay to give NHTSA an additional six months to respond to the 
petitions for reconsideration and to provide the school bus industry at 
least six months lead time to implement the changes.

Agency Decision to Delay Effective Date

    The agency is in the process of responding to the petitions for 
reconsideration. If the effective date were not delayed, some school 
bus manufacturers might have to redesign some of their vehicles to meet 
the requirements of the April 2002 final rule. If we respond to the 
petitions for reconsideration by amending that final rule's method of 
determining the areas on a school bus where wheelchair securement 
anchorages can be installed, that amendment could again affect the 
design and manufacture of school buses. Some manufacturers might find,

[[Page 19753]]

depending on the nature of the amendments, that the redesign they had 
implemented to meet the April 2002 final rule was unnecessary. This 
outcome is not desirable. The benefits from the April 2002 rulemaking 
cannot be quantified, and are likely not significant.
    We anticipate issuing the response to petitions for reconsideration 
later this year. A one-year delay of the effective date, to April 21, 
2004, preserves the status quo and avoids what may turn out to be 
unnecessary manufacturing changes to meet the requirements of the April 
2002 final rule.

Effective Date of This Document

    Because the April 21, 2003 effective date for the final rule is 
fast approaching, NHTSA finds for good cause that this action delaying 
the effective date must take effect immediately. Today's final rule 
makes no substantive change to the standard, but delays the effective 
date of the April 19, 2002 final rule for one year while the agency 
responds to the petitions for reconsideration of the rule. If the 
effective date is not delayed, the availability of school buses could 
be reduced and costs of some vehicles could increase.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 Fed. 
Reg. 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 rulemaking document was not reviewed 
under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' Further, we have 
determined that this action is not ``significant'' within the meaning 
of the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and 
procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
    This final rule delays the effective date of an April 19, 2002 
final rule. There are no additional costs associated with today's final 
rule.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 
1996) provides that 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.
    In the April 19, 2002 final rule, the agency certified that that 
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Accordingly, I have considered the effects of 
this rulemaking action under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq.) and certify that this final rule, which delays the 
effective date of that earlier final rule, will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. There are no 
additional costs associated with this final rule.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.)(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. Since it only delays the effective date of a final 
rule, this final rule does not impose any new collections of 
information requirements for which a 5 CFR part 1320 clearance must be 
obtained.

D. National Environmental Policy Act

    We have analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act. We have determined that implementation of 
this action will not have any significant impact on the quality of the 
human environment.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 requires us to develop an accountable process 
to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in 
the development of regulatory policies that have federalism 
implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism implications'' are 
defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have 
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under 
Executive Order 13132, we may not issue a regulation with Federalism 
implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and 
that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides 
the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by 
State and local governments, or unless we consult with State and local 
officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. 
We also may not issue a regulation with Federalism implications and 
that preempts State law unless we consult with State and local 
officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
    This final rule does not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. 
The reason is that this final rule applies to manufacturers of school 
buses and to school buses, and not to the States or local governments. 
Thus, the requirements of Section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply 
to this rule.

F. Civil Justice Reform

    This final 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 may prescribe or continue in 
effect a standard applicable to the same aspect

[[Page 19754]]

of performance of a motor vehicle only if the standard is identical to 
the Federal standard. However, the United States Government, a state or 
political subdivision of a state may prescribe a standard for a motor 
vehicle or motor vehicle equipment obtained for its own use that 
imposes a higher performance requirement than that required by 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.

G. 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 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 final rule will 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 final rule is not subject to the 
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

H. Executive Order 13045--Economically Significant Rules 
Disporportionately Affecting Children

    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 rule on children, and explain why the 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.

I. 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.

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

    Issued on: April 17, 2003.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 03-10040 Filed 4-18-03; 2:04 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P