Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release |
|---|
Topics: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
|
Howard M. Smolkin
Federal Register
May 4, 1994
[Federal Register: May 4, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 88-21, Notice No. 8]
RIN 2127-AC88
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Bus Emergency Exits and
Window Retention and Release
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule, delay of effective date.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule delays until September 1, 1994, the effective
date of the requirements in one section of a final rule issued November
2, 1992, which amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217,
Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release, to revise the
minimum requirements for school bus emergency exits and improve access
to school bus emergency doors. On March 24, 1994, NHTSA issued an
interpretation of the term ``daylight opening'' used in the final rule.
Subsequently, NHTSA has learned that several school bus manufacturers
had misunderstood this term and as a result, will not have designed
many of their buses with sufficient exits to comply with the new
requirement by the May 2, 1994 effective date. Because NHTSA agrees
that this term could have been misunderstood, NHTSA is allowing
manufacturers to continue certifying their buses as having the exits
required prior to the November 2, 1992 final rule until September 1,
1994. All other requirements of the November 2, 1992 final rule will
continue to be effective on May 2, 1994.
DATES: Effective Date: The amendments made in this rule are effective
May 2, 1994.
Petition Date: Any petitions for reconsideration must be received
by NHTSA no later than June 3, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Any petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket
and notice number of this notice and be submitted to: Docket Section,
room 5109, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh
Street SW., Washington, DC 20590. (Docket Room hours are 9:30 a.m.-4
p.m., Monday through Friday.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Leon DeLarm, NRM-15, Office of
Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone: (202) 366-4920.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 15, 1991, NHTSA published a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to amend Standard No. 217 to
require that the minimum number of emergency exits on school buses be
based upon the seating capacity of the school bus (56 FR 11153). Under
the proposal, all school buses would have been required to have either
a rear emergency exit door or a side emergency exit door and a rear
push-out window. Depending on capacity, some school buses would have
been required to have additional exits. The NPRM proposed two options
regarding the means for providing the additional emergency exits.
Option A would have required the use of emergency exit doors. Option B
would have required a combination of emergency exit doors and emergency
roof exits. The NPRM included a table indicating the additional exits
required under each option for any bus with a designated seating
capacity between 24 and 90. The determination of the number and type of
exits used in the tables was based on crediting an emergency exit door
with its minimum area (24 inches x 45 inches, or 1,080 inches\2\) and
crediting two emergency roof exits as a single emergency exit door.
On November 2, 1992, NHTSA published a final rule increasing the
amount of emergency exit area required on school buses (57 FR 49413).
As in the proposal, the final rule required that the minimum emergency
exit area on school buses be based upon the seating capacity of the
school bus. However, the final rule differed from the NPRM concerning
the calculation by which the need for additional emergency exits was to
be determined. (On December 2, 1992 NHTSA published a technical
amendment to the November 2, 1992 final rule. Both of these notices
will be referred to collectively as the November 2, 1992 final rule.)
The November 2, 1992 final rule specified that after calculating
the total amount of additional emergency exit area [AEEA] needed for a
school bus, using the formula proposed in the NPRM, each exit was to be
credited with its ``daylight opening.'' ``Daylight opening'' was
defined as ``the maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit when
viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening.''
The preamble to the final rule did not include a further discussion of
what might constitute an obstruction.
On January 8, 1994, Mr. Bob Carver of Wayne Wheeled Vehicles
(Wayne) wrote to the agency requesting clarification of the terms
``daylight opening'' and ``unobstructed opening.'' The Wayne letter
included Figure 5C from the November 2, 1992 final rule. This figure
illustrates the permitted placement of a seat adjacent to a side
emergency exit door. Wayne stated that agency personnel had indicated
that only the area visually obstructed by the seat could not be
credited, and requested confirmation of this interpretation.
The agency's response, dated March 24, 1994, did not agree with
this interpretation. The March 24 letter states,
The term ``daylight opening'' is defined in the Final Rule as
``the maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit when viewed
from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening.'' An
obstruction in this context would include any obstacle or object
that would block, obscure, or interfere with, in any way, access to
that exit when opened. In determining the ``maximum unobstructed
opening of an emergency exit,'' we would subtract, from the total
area of the opening, the area of any portions of the opening that
cannot be used for exit purposes as a result of the obstruction. The
area measurements would be taken when viewed from a direction
perpendicular to the plane of the opening.
With regard to the particular illustration included with the Wayne
letter, the March 24 letter states that the area forward of the seat
back and leg would be considered obstructed.
On April 20, 1994, Mr. Thomas D. Turner of Blue Bird Body Company
(Blue Bird) wrote to the agency regarding the March 24 letter. The Blue
Bird letter states, ``(w)e believed and were told (by agency personnel)
that the definition of `daylight opening' applied to the exit opening
itself and did not involve access to the exit opening.'' The Blue Bird
letter also notes that additional interpretations will be needed to
address obstructions at rear emergency exit doors, emergency exit
windows, and the front service door. Blue Bird requested that the
agency suspend enforcement until either (1) a final rule is issued in
connection with a December 1, 1993 NPRM which proposed two alternative
means of determining the maximum credit of emergency exits or (2)
September 1, 1994. Blue Bird stated that this would allow sufficient
time to resolve these issues and make any necessary changes.
On April 26, 1994, Mr. Turner met with agency to further explain
the scope of the problem for Blue Bird. In this meeting, Mr. Turner
explained that the confusion resulted in part because the term
``daylight opening'' is used differently from the November 2 final rule
definition in other contexts. The alternate definition is consistent
with Blue Bird's understanding of the term prior to the March 24, 1994
letter.
On April 27, 1994, Ms. Jane L. Dawson of Thomas Built Buses (Thomas
Built) wrote to the agency to request a delay of the effective date of
the November 2, 1992 final rule. Thomas Built stated that the March 24,
1994 letter ``differs drastically from the general interpretation of
the school bus industry.'' Thomas Built also stated that one effect of
the March 24 letter was the need for additional interpretations
regarding other emergency exits.
Interpreting the term ``daylight opening'' either as any area not
visually obstructed or as the entire area of the exit opening, results
in crediting some exits with more exit area than the agency intended.
On some buses, this would result in an incorrect determination that
either no additional exits or fewer additional exits are required. For
example, if a rear emergency exit door is credited with greater area
than allowed, a manufacturer may have determined that no additional
exits were required. On other buses, the manufacturer may have
determined that only an additional side emergency exit door was
required. However, if the required exits and the additional side
emergency exit door are credited with greater area than allowed, this
determination would be incorrect and an additional emergency roof exit
may also be required.
The agency has determined that the term ``daylight opening,''
without clarifying explanation, is arguably ambiguous, in that it
leaves open the question of whether an ``obstruction'' is a visual
obstruction or a physical obstruction. This is the issue resolved by
the agency's March 24, 1994 letter to Wayne.
Rather than penalize manufacturers that utilized the alternative
interpretation, at significant cost to them, NHTSA has decided to allow
manufacturers the option of complying with the previous requirements
regarding the number and type of exits required for a school bus until
September 1, 1994. That is, until September 1, 1994, manufacturers can
install either a rear emergency exit door or a side emergency exit door
and a rear push-out window.
In response to Blue Bird's request to suspend enforcement until a
final rule is issued for the December 1, 1993, NPRM, NHTSA has
determined that such a delay is not warranted. Each of the options
proposed in the December 1, 1993 NPRM would further limit the amount of
area that can be credited for an emergency exit. Because any final rule
consistent with the proposals in the December 1, 1993 NPRM would
require vehicle redesign, additional leadtime would be necessary after
publication of such a final rule. Therefore, NHTSA has determined that
suspension of the November 2, 1992 final rule until the rulemaking
proceeding for the December 1, 1993 NPRM is final would unnecessarily
delay the safety benefits of the November 2, 1992 final rule.
NHTSA believes that the safety effects of an extension to September
1, 1994 will be minimal. The November 2, 1992 final rule required
additional exits on some school buses. The confusion about the amount
of area credited for each exit has resulted in some school buses having
fewer exits than the agency expected under the November 2, 1992 final
rule. However, many of these school buses have been redesigned to have
more exits than required prior to the November 2, 1992 final rule. The
agency expects that manufacturers will not revert to prior designs
during the extension period. Therefore, much of the anticipated
benefits of the final rule will be retained during this time period. In
addition, the length of the extension period is short. Therefore, NHTSA
anticipates minimal loss of safety benefits as a result of this
extension.
By contrast, the economic effects of denying manufacturers'
requests to delay the effective date would be significant. Most of the
school buses which are currently being manufactured or which will be
manufactured during the extension period have already been ordered.
Because it is common practice to order school buses by competitive
bidding, manufacturers will have to sell these school buses at the
price quoted when ordered. If a manufacturer based the price on
installing fewer exits than required to comply with Standard No. 217,
the manufacturer would have to absorb the cost. In addition, if an
extension were not granted, manufacturers would have to stop production
until changes could be made to designs, which could take several
months.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
E.O. 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.'' This action has been
determined to be not ``significant'' under the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. As explained
above, this notice merely extends the effective date of the final rule
of November 2, 1992, which amended Standard 217. There will be no
additional costs associated with this final rule. Rather, this final
rule extends the date of compliance with the amendments of Standard 217
to September 1, 1994.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this final rule under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Since this notice merely extends the effective date of a
previously-issued notice, no costs are associated with it. Accordingly,
the agency has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-
511), there are no requirements for information collection associated
with this final rule.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has also analyzed this final rule under the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it will not have a
significant impact on the human environment.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
NHTSA has analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and has determined that this rule
will not have significant federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Civil Justice Reform
This final rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under section
103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety
Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)), 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. Section 105 of the Safety Act
(15 U.S.C. 1394) 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.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR 571.217 is amended as
follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1403, 1407; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Sec. 571.217 [Amended]
2. Section 571.217 is amended by revising Sec. 5.2.3 and adding a
new Sec. 5.2.3.4, to read as follows:
Sec. 5.2.3 School buses. Except as provided in Sec. 5.2.3.4, each
school bus shall comply with Sec. 5.2.3.1 through Sec. 5.2.3.3.
* * * * *
Sec. 5.2.3.4 Each school bus manufactured before September 1, 1994
may, at the manufacturer's option, comply with either Sec. 5.2.3.4(a)
or Sec. 5.2.3.4(b) instead of Sec. 5.2.3.1 through Sec. 5.2.3.3.
(a) Each bus shall be equipped with 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 4,536 kilograms or less); or
(b) Each bus shall be equipped with one emergency door on the
vehicle's left side that is hinged on its forward side and meets the
requirements of Sec. 5.2.3.2(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 Sec. 5.2.3.2(c).
Howard M. Smolkin,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 94-10758 Filed 4-29-94; 4:55 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P