[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 247 (Monday, December 28, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68558-68564]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-30324]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0190]
RIN 2127-AK20
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Bus Emergency Exits and
Window Retention and Release
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
[[Page 68559]]
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This NPRM proposes two housekeeping measures relating to
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, ``Bus emergency
exits and window retention and release.'' First, in response to a
petition for rulemaking from the School Bus Manufacturers' Technical
Council, NHTSA proposes to amend the standard to specify that the
exterior release (the exterior handle) for school bus rear emergency
exit doors may be located opposite the door hinges. The standard
currently specifies that the exterior release for rear emergency exit
doors be located in the middle of the door. Second, this NPRM would
clarify FMVSS No. 217 as to the number of force applications that are
required to open a window or roof emergency exit. For exits with one
release mechanism, the exit shall require two force applications to
open. The standard currently specifies that the ``mechanism'' shall
require two force applications to open. For exits with two release
mechanisms, there shall be a total of three force applications to open
the exit: one force application shall be applied to each of the two
mechanisms to release the mechanism, and another force shall be applied
to open the exit.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 26, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: DOT Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 am and 5 pm Eastern
time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FAX: (202) 493-2551.
Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the
docket number of this document.
You may call the Docket Management Facility at 202-366-9826.
Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy Act heading under Rulemaking
Analyses and Notices.
Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to: http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, Mr. Charles
Hott, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards (telephone: 202-366-0247)
(fax: 202-366-4921), NVS-113. For legal issues, Ms. Dorothy Nakama,
Office of the Chief Counsel (telephone: 202-366-2992) (fax: 202-366-
3820), NCC-112. These officials can be reached at the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Location of Exterior Release on Rear Emergency Exit Door
III. Window or Roof Emergency Exit Release
IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
I. Background
The purpose of FMVSS No. 217 (49 CFR 571.217) is to minimize the
likelihood of occupants being thrown from the bus and to provide a
means of readily accessible emergency egress. FMVSS No. 217 applies to
buses (including school buses), except buses manufactured for the
purpose of transporting persons under physical restraint. FMVSS No. 217
establishes requirements for the retention of windows other than
windshields in buses, and establishes operating forces, opening
dimensions, and markings for bus emergency exits.
II. Location of Exterior Release on Rear Emergency Exit Door
At S5.3.3.1(a), FMVSS No. 217 establishes provisions for the
location of the interior and exterior releases (handles) for side and
rear emergency door exits for school buses with a gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR) greater than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) (``large
school buses''). The standard currently specifies at S5.3.3.1(a) and
Figure 3D of the standard, and has specified since 1973, that the
interior and exterior releases (handles) for rear emergency exit doors
be located in the center of the door. However, school bus manufacturers
have always understood the standard as requiring only the placement of
the interior release (handle) to be in the center of the door, and that
the exterior release (handle) may be near the edge of the door on the
side opposite the hinges. This is because the exterior handle so
located makes it easier for rescuers outside the school bus to open the
rear emergency exit door, using a pulling motion, rather than pulling
on an exterior handle located in the center of the door.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Locating the outside handle in the center region of the door
makes it harder for first responders to open the door from the
outside in the event of an emergency. This is because of the
mechanical advantage provided by the lever arm, e.g., the longer the
distance between the handle and the door hinges, the less force is
required to open the door. Thus, for optimum leverage, the handle
should be operated from the side of the door as far away as possible
from the door hinges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The School Bus Manufacturers' Technical Council (SBMTC) petitioned
the agency to amend FMVSS No. 217 to specify that the exterior release
(handle) for school bus rear emergency exit doors may be located near
the edge of the door on the side opposite the hinges. Specifically,
SBMTC petitioned to amend S5.3.3.1(a) and one of the two drawings in
Figure 3D.
S5.3.3.1(a) specifies that the manual interior and outside releases
(handles) are located: ``Within the high force access region shown in
Figure 3A for a side emergency exit door, and in figure 3D for a rear
emergency exit door.'' Figure 3D consists of two drawings. The left-
side drawing shows the vertical dimensions of the high force access
region. As shown in the left-side drawing, the release (handle) may be
located at any point from the left side of the door to the right.
However, the right-side drawing, giving a different perspective of the
rear exit, shows that the high force access region is a narrow area in
the center of the door. Since S5.3.3.1(a) requires the interior and
exterior releases (handles) to be ``[w]ithin the high force access
region shown in * * * figure 3D for a rear emergency exit door,'' the
releases must be in that narrow area in the center of the door shown in
the right-side drawing of Figure 3D. As noted earlier, in actuality,
SBMTC stated that manufacturers are ``universally'' placing the
exterior releases on the side of the doors opposite the hinges.
SBMTC suggests that we reconcile the language of the standard with
the practices of the industry and with what petitioner believes is best
for safety. The petitioner suggests that we make the right-side drawing
of Figure 3D apply only to the interior release (handle) and not to the
exterior release. With regard to applying the right-side drawing to the
interior release (handle), the petitioner believes there are reasons to
require the interior release to be in the center of the door: the
location ensures that the release is visible to bus occupants, and is
not obscured by seat backs if the door is wider than the bus's center
aisle. Further, we note that the exit would be opened by a pushing
rather than pulling
[[Page 68560]]
motion, so locating the handle in the center of the door does not
markedly increase the difficulty of opening the door. However, since
exterior releases (handles) are not obscured by seat backs, and since
it is more difficult to open an exit by a pulling motion when the
release (handle) is in the center of the door than when the handle is
on the edge opposite the hinges, SBMTC believes that specifying a
location in the center of the door serves no safety purpose for an
exterior release.
NHTSA agrees. We propose amending the standard to specify that the
interior release (handle) for a rear emergency exit must be in the high
force access region shown in both drawings of current Figure 3D, and
that the exterior release for the exit must only be in the high force
access region shown in the left-side drawing of current Figure 3D.
Although no manufacturer currently places the exterior release in the
center of the door, we request comment on whether we should require the
exterior release to be no further than two inches away from the edge of
the door. (To clarify the standard, NHTSA proposes that instead of
having Figure 3D consist of two drawings, Figure 3D would be easier to
understand if the left-side drawing were renamed Figure 3D(1) and the
right-side drawing were renamed Figure 3D(2).) We tentatively agree
that the school bus manufacturers' current practice of placing the
exterior rear emergency exit door release (handle) near the edge of the
door on the side opposite the hinges better meets the need for safety
than placing the exterior release in the center of the door. Releases
(handles) placed opposite the hinges would require less force to pull
open the door for persons outside the school bus.
We believe that this proposal is primarily a housekeeping measure
that involves no cost implications, since all manufacturers of large
school buses currently locate the exterior release (handle) on the edge
of the door opposite the hinges. Demands on agency rulemaking resources
have impeded the agency's progress in issuing this NPRM on this
housekeeping matter. This proposal would provide more flexibility in
locating the exterior release.
Since all manufacturers currently meet the proposed changes
discussed above regarding placement of the exterior release (handle),
we propose making the amendments effective 60 days following
publication of a final rule.
III. Window or Roof Emergency Exit Release
At S5.3.3.2, FMVSS No. 217 specifies the type of and force
applications to open emergency window exits in all school buses, and at
S5.3.3.3 does the same for school bus emergency roof exits. At S5.3.2,
the standard specifies the type of and force applications to open
emergency exits in buses other than school buses.
These paragraphs of the standard specify, among other things: ``In
the case of [an exit] with one release mechanism, the mechanism shall
require two force applications to release the exit. In the case of [an
exit] with two release mechanisms, each mechanism shall require one
[force] application to release the exit.'' The language first appeared
in a November 2, 1992, final rule (57 FR 49423).
In a June 13, 1994 interpretation letter to Blue Bird Body Company
(Blue Bird), NHTSA stated that the sentence in S5.3.3.2, ``In the case
of windows with one release mechanism, the mechanism shall require two
force applications to release the exit,'' was incorrect. The agency
stated that the sentence was meant to read: ``In the case of windows
with one release mechanism, the exit shall require two force
applications to open.'' (Emphasis added.) That is to say, the agency
intended a window or roof exit with one release mechanism to be able to
be opened with only two force applications: One force application that
undoes the release mechanism and a second force application that opens
the exit. The concern with the strict wording of the standard is that
it could be read as specifying that two force applications are used to
activate the single mechanism and that a third force application is
applied to open the exit. This NPRM proposes to correct the wording so
that it states more clearly what the agency had intended (described
below). It should be noted that this rulemaking is primarily a
housekeeping measure; we believe that all emergency window and roof
exits are currently manufactured to meet the requirements that the
agency had intended.
Accordingly, the agency proposes the following changes. NHTSA
believes that S5.3.2, S5.3.3.2, and S5.3.3 would be clearer if the
requirements for releasing the mechanism(s) are separated from the
requirements for opening the exit. NHTSA proposes to specify, for exits
with one release mechanism, the exit shall require two force
applications to open. For exits with two release mechanisms, there
shall be a total of three force applications to open the exit: one
force application shall be applied to each of the two mechanisms to
release the mechanism, and another force shall be applied to open the
exit.
NHTSA proposes that if made final, these amendments to the force
application requirements take effect one year after the final rule is
published in the Federal Register, with early optional compliance
permitted. To the agency's knowledge, all emergency window and roof
exits are currently manufactured to meet the proposed requirements.
However, to the extent that changes may be necessitated to meet the
proposed requirements, NHTSA believes one year should be sufficient
time to implement the changes. Comments are requested on these issues.
IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. It is not considered to be
significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). NHTSA believes that
there will be no costs associated with this proposed rule. We believe
that all vehicles currently meet the proposed changes discussed in this
NPRM.
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).
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The 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.
NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking action under
the
[[Page 68561]]
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that if made final, this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. If made final, this proposed rule
would not substantively change existing FMVSS No. 217 requirements for
small businesses that are school bus manufacturers.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that
implementation of this action would not have any significant impact on
the quality of the human environment.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has examined today's proposal pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that
the proposal does not have federalism implications because it 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.''
Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the preemptive effect
of today's proposal. NHTSA's safety standards can have preemptive
effect in at least two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision: ``When a
motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State
or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in
effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is
identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter.'' 49 U.S.C.
30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command that unavoidably preempts
State legislative and administrative law, not today's rulemaking, so
consultation would be unnecessary.
Second, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility of implied
preemption: State requirements imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers,
including sanctions imposed by State tort law, can stand as an obstacle
to the accomplishment and execution of a NHTSA safety standard. When
such a conflict is discerned, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution
makes the State requirements unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda
Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000). However, NHTSA has considered the
nature and purpose of today's proposal and does not currently foresee
any potential State requirements that might conflict with it. Without
any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (7) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive
effect of this proposed rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further
that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for
reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they
may file suit in court.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless
the collection displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
control number. There are no collections of information associated with
this notice of proposed rulemaking. Thus, the Paperwork Reduction Act
would not apply.
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 NHTSA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 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 the agency to provide Congress,
through the OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
After carefully reviewing the available information, NHTSA has
determined that there are no voluntary consensus standards relevant to
this rulemaking, as this NPRM seeks to clarify existing FMVSS No. 217
requirements.
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). This proposed rule would not result in the expenditure
by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector of more than $100 million annually.
Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
--Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
--Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
--Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
--Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
--Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
--Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
--What else could we do to make this rulemaking easier to understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this NPRM.
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
[[Page 68562]]
the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in
the Unified Agenda.
Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477 at 19478).
V. Public Participation
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.\2\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 49 CFR 553.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please submit your comments by any of the methods discussed in the
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this NPRM.
Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html.
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. 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.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 49 CFR 512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, you should submit a copy, from which you have deleted
the claimed confidential business information, to the Docket by one of
the methods set forth at the beginning of this NPRM.
Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?
We will consider all comments received before the close of business
on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent
possible, we will also consider comments received after that date.
Therefore, if interested persons believe that any new information the
agency places in the docket affects their comments, they may submit
comments after the closing date concerning how the agency should
consider that information for the final rule.
If a comment is received too late for us to consider in developing
a final rule, 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 materials placed in the docket for this document
(e.g., the comments submitted in response to this document by other
interested persons) at any time by going to http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. You may also
read the materials at the DOT Docket by going to the street address
given above under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Labeling, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
part 571 as follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority for part 571 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 571.217 is amended by:
a. Revising S5.3.2(a), S5.3.2(b)(1) and (b)(2), S5.3.3.1(a), and
the first sentence of S5.3.3.2;
b. Redesignating S5.3.3.3 as S5.3.3.4;
c. Adding a new S5.3.2.1 (a) and (b), S5.3.3.3 and S5.3.3.3.1;
d. Revising the first sentence of newly redesignated paragraph
S5.3.3.4;
e. Adding S5.3.3.5 and S5.3.3.5.1 following S5.3.3.4(b)(3); and,
f. Revising Figure 3D.
The revised, redesignated and added text and figure read as
follows:
Sec. 571.217 Standard No. 217; Bus emergency exits and window
retention and release.
* * * * *
S5.3.2 * * *
(a) 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
person, from inside the passenger compartment, using force applications
each of which conforms, at the option of the manufacturer, either to
S5.3.2.1(a) or S5.3.2.1(b).
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) For vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2010, [this date
has been inserted for illustration purposes], each exit described in
S5.3.2(a) 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]. The force
applications for the mechanism(s) must conform to either (a) or (b) of
S5.3.2.1.
(2) For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2010, [this
date has been inserted for illustration purposes], each exit described
in S5.3.2(a) shall have no more than two release mechanisms. For exits
with one release mechanism, the exit shall require two force
applications to open the exit: one force application shall be applied
to the mechanism and another force application shall be applied to open
the exit. The force application for the release mechanism must differ
by not less than 90 degrees and not more than 180 degrees from the
direction of the initial motion to open the exit. For exits with two
release mechanisms, there shall be a total of three force applications
to open the exit: one force application shall be applied to each of the
two mechanisms to release each mechanism, and another force shall be
applied to open the exit. The force application for at least one of the
release mechanisms must differ by not less than 90 degrees and not more
than 180 degrees from the direction of the initial motion to open the
exit. The force applications for the mechanism(s) must conform to
either S5.3.2.1(a) or S5.3.2.1(b), as appropriate.
[[Page 68563]]
S5.3.2.1(a) Low-force application.
(1) Location. As shown in Figure 1 or Figure 3.
(2) Type of motion. Rotary or straight.
(3) Magnitude. Not more than 90 N.
(b) High-force application.
(1) Location. As shown in Figure 2 or Figure 3.
(2) Type of motion. Straight, perpendicular to the undisturbed exit
surface.
(3) Magnitude. Not more than 270 N.
S5.3.3.1 * * *
(a) Location: Within the high force access region shown in Figure
3A for a side emergency exit door, within the high force access region
shown in both Figure 3D(1) and Figure 3D(2) for an interior release
mechanism for a rear emergency exit door, and within the high force
access region shown in Figure 3D(1) for an exterior release mechanism
for a rear emergency exit door.
* * * * *
S5.3.3.2 For vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2010, [this
date has been inserted for illustration purposes], 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 must allow
manual opening 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. * * *
* * * * *
S5.3.3.3 For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2010,
[this date has been inserted for illustration purposes], 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 must allow
manual opening of the exit by a single person, from inside the
passenger compartment. Each exit shall have no more than two release
mechanisms. The mechanism(s) must be located in either the specified
low-force or high-force regions (at the option of the manufacturer),
with force applications and types of motions that conform to either
S5.3.3.3.1(a) or (b) of this section, as appropriate. For exits with
one release mechanism, the exit shall require two force applications to
open the exit. The force application for the release mechanism must
differ by not less than 90 degrees and not more than 180 degrees from
the direction of the initial motion to open the exit. For exits with
two release mechanisms, there shall be a total of three force
applications to open the exit: one force application shall be applied
to each of the two mechanisms to release each mechanism, and another
force shall be applied to open the exit. The force application for at
least one of the release mechanisms must differ by not less than 90
degrees and not more than 180 degrees from the direction of the initial
motion to open the exit. 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 unlatched and
the vehicle's ignition is in the ``on'' position, a continuous warning
shall be audible at the driver's seating position and in the vicinity
of that emergency exit.
S5.3.3.3.1 The mechanism(s) must be located in either the specified
low-force or high-force regions (at the option of the manufacturer),
with force applications and types of motions that conform to either
S5.3.3.3.1(a) or (b) of this section depending upon the location of the
mechanism.
(a) Emergency exit windows--Low-force application.
(1) Location: Within the low-force access regions shown in Figures
1 and 3 for an emergency exit window.
(2) Type of motion: Rotary or straight.
(3) Magnitude: Not more than 90 N.
(b) Emergency exit windows--High-force application.
(1) Location: Within the high-force access regions shown in Figures
2 and 3 for an emergency exit window.
(2) Type of motion: Straight and perpendicular to the undisturbed
exit surface.
(3) Magnitude: Not more than 180 N.
S5.3.3.4 For vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2010, [this
date has been inserted for illustration purposes], 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 opening of the exit by a single person from both inside and
outside 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 S5.3.3.4(a) or (b) of this section. * *
*
* * * * *
S5.3.3.5 For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2010,
[this date has been inserted for illustration purposes], 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 must allow
manual opening of the exit by a single person, from inside the
passenger compartment. Each exit shall have no more than two release
mechanisms. The mechanism(s) must be located in either the specified
low-force or high-force regions (at the option of the manufacturer),
with force applications and types of motions that conform to either
S5.3.3.5.1(a) or (b) of this section, as appropriate. For exits with
one release mechanism, the exit shall require two force applications to
open the exit. The force application for the release mechanism must
differ by not less than 90 degrees and not more than 180 degrees from
the direction of the initial motion to open the exit. For exits with
two release mechanisms, there shall be a total of three force
applications to open the exit: One force application shall be applied
to each of the two mechanisms to release each mechanism, and another
force shall be applied to open the exit. The force application for at
least one of the release mechanisms must differ by not less than 90
degrees and not more than 180 degrees from the direction of the initial
motion to open the exit.
S5.3.3.5.1 The mechanism(s) must be located in either the specified
low-force or high-force regions (at the option of the manufacturer),
with force applications and types of motions that conform to either
S5.3.3.5.1(a) or (b) of this section depending upon the location of the
mechanism.
(a) Emergency roof exits--Low-force application.
(1) Location: Within the low force access regions shown in Figure
3B, in the case of buses whose roof exits are not offset from the plane
specified in S5.2.3.2(b)(5). In the case of buses which have roof exits
offset from the plane specified in S5.2.3.2(b)(5), the amount of offset
shall be used to recalculate the dimensions in Figure 3B for the offset
exits.
(2) Type of motion: Rotary or straight.
(3) Magnitude: Not more than 90 N.
(b) Emergency roof exits--High-force application.
(1) Location: Within the high force access regions shown in Figure
3B, in the case of buses whose roof exits are not offset from the plane
specified in S5.2.3.2(b)(5). In the case of buses which have roof exits
offset from the plane specified in S5.2.3.2(b)(5), the amount of offset
shall be used to recalculate the dimensions in Figure 3B for the offset
exits.
(2) Type of motion: Straight and perpendicular to the undisturbed
exit surface.
[[Page 68564]]
(3) Magnitude: Not more than 180 N.
* * * * *
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28DE09.000
Issued on: December 11, 2009.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E9-30324 Filed 12-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P