Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release, 47131-47137 [05-16016]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 155 (Friday, August 12, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47131-47137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-16016]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-99-5157]
RIN 2127-AJ47


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

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

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This document responds to petitions for reconsideration of an 
April 19, 2002 final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 217, ``Bus emergency exits and window retention and 
release.'' That final rule amended the standard to reduce the 
likelihood that wheelchair securement anchorages will be installed in 
locations that permit wheelchairs to be secured where they block access 
to emergency exit doors. Petitioners requested reconsideration of the 
final rule's use of transverse vertical and horizontal planes to define 
the area around the side and rear emergency exit doors where wheelchair 
anchorages may not be located. This request is granted. Petitioners 
also asked NHTSA to reconsider the ``DO NOT BLOCK'' warning label. This 
request is denied.
    This final rule applies to new school buses equipped with 
wheelchair securement anchorages. Nothing in this final rule requires 
school buses to be so equipped.

DATES: Effective date: The effective date for the final rule is: April 
24, 2006. Manufacturers are provided optional early compliance with 
this final rule beginning August 12, 2005. Petitions for 
reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration of the final rule must 
be received not later than September 26, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of the final rule must refer 
to the docket and notice number set forth above and be submitted to the 
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20590, with a copy to Docket 
Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

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., SW., Washington, DC, 
20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of Final Rule

    Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus 
emergency exits and window retention and release, (49 CFR 571.217), 
specifies requirements for the retention of windows other than 
windshields in buses, and requirements 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.
    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

[[Page 47132]]

wheelchair securement anchorages \1\ would be installed such that a 
wheelchair secured thereto would block access to emergency exit doors. 
For a side emergency exit door, the final rule restricted these 
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 and a longitudinal vertical plane through the longitudinal 
centerline of the school bus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Defined at S4 of 49 CFR 571.222.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For a rear emergency exit door, the final rule restricted the 
anchorages from being placed in an area bounded by:
    (a) Longitudinal vertical planes tangent to the left and right 
sides of the door opening;
    (b) A horizontal plane 1,145 mm (45 inches) above the bus floor; 
and
    (c) A transverse vertical plane that is either:
    (1) 305 mm (12 inches) forward of the bottom edge of the door 
opening (for school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) 
over 4,536 kg) (over 10,000 lb), or
    (2) 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)(10,000 lb or less).
    The final rule also provided that in school buses with one or more 
wheelchair securement anchorages, emergency exit doors and emergency 
exit windows must bear a label stating, ``DO NOT BLOCK''. The agency 
believed that the label was needed to help ensure that access to these 
doors and exits is not blocked with wheelchairs or other items, such as 
book bags, knapsacks, sports equipment or band equipment.
    The April 19, 2002 final rule specified an effective date of April 
21, 2003 for the amendments. Optional early compliance with the final 
rule was permitted. By way of Federal Register documents published 
April 22, 2003 (68 FR 19752) and March 12, 2004 (69 FR 11815), NHTSA 
delayed the effective date to April 21, 2006.

II. Petitions for Reconsideration

    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 petitioners requested reconsideration of 
the final rule's use of transverse vertical and horizontal planes to 
define the area around the side and rear emergency exit doors where 
wheelchair anchorages may not be located. All three petitioners stated 
that the area should instead be defined using ``the rectangular 
parallelepiped fixture'' described in S5.4.2.1 of the standard.
    The petitioners also asked NHTSA to reconsider the ``DO NOT BLOCK'' 
warning label. They requested that the ``DO NOT BLOCK'' warning label 
be required for only emergency exit doors, and not emergency exit 
windows.
    Both of these issues are discussed below.

a. Exclusion Zone at the Rear Emergency Door

    The petitioners disagreed with the agency's decision in the final 
rule to use transverse vertical and horizontal planes to define the 
area around the rear emergency exit door where wheelchair anchorages 
may not be located (S5.4.3.1(b) and (c)). All three petitioners stated 
that the area should instead be defined using ``the rectangular 
parallelepiped fixture'' described in S5.4.2.1(a)(1) of the standard. 
Blue Bird stated that the parallelepiped is 24 inches in width, whereas 
the rear emergency door opening on many (if not all) school buses 
exceeds 24 inches.\2\ The petitioners believed that, by requiring that 
wheelchair securement anchorages must not be located such that any 
portion of the anchorage is within the space bounded by longitudinal 
vertical planes tangent to the left and right sides of the door 
opening, the final rule penalizes manufacturers that provide larger 
than required emergency door openings (i.e., by limiting to a greater 
extent the placement of wheelchair securement anchorages). AmTran 
stated that FMVSS No. 217 allows manufacturers to position the 
rectangular parallelepiped anywhere within the rear emergency exit door 
opening, and that the final rule should thus specify that the clearance 
area can be from either the left or right side of the emergency door. 
Petitioners also stated that the wording of S5.4.3.1(b) and (c) is not 
in agreement with the diagram in Figure 6C. The figure appears to 
specify that the shaded region within which no anchorage can be located 
is 24 inches wide for buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more, and 
is not dependent on the distance between the left and right sides of 
the emergency door opening.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Blue Bird stated that the larger rear emergency door opening 
has provided flexibility for school bus manufacturers in meeting 
customer needs (regarding the location of passenger seating on the 
various models of school buses) to maximize passenger capacity while 
still maintaining the required ``staging area'' at the rear 
emergency door.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Blue Bird recommended that both sections S5.4.3.1(b) and (c) be 
replaced by a new S5.4.3.1(b) that states:

    In the case of rear emergency exit doors in school buses, no 
portion of a wheelchair securement anchorage shall be located within 
the area of the parallelepiped specified in S5.4.2.1(1) [sic] if the 
GVWR is more than 10,000 pounds, or specified in S5.4.2.2 if the 
GVWR is 10,000 pounds or less.

    Agency response: We are granting the petitioners' requests 
regarding this issue, with one change.
    At present, all school bus manufacturers use rear emergency exit 
doors that are centered in the rear of the school bus. The rear 
emergency exit doors are larger than the minimum opening width, to 
allow for different seating configurations that may change the location 
of the aisle leading to the rear emergency exit door. In the rulemaking 
creating S5.4.3.1(b) and (c), the new language referred to the 
longitudinal vertical planes tangent to the right and left sides of the 
door opening without taking into consideration that school bus 
manufacturers could be manufacturing the rear emergency exit doors 
wider than the minimum required opening. The agency does not believe 
there is a need to require the clearance area for anchorages to be 
greater than the clearance area for the exit itself.
    The intent of this rulemaking action is to prohibit wheelchair 
securement anchorages in the rear exit staging area. According to 
petitioners, the larger rear emergency exit doors give manufacturers 
the ability to position the placement of the rear exit door in the 
center of the bus body and the flexibility to maintain the clearance 
area required by FMVSS No. 217 with different seating configurations. 
The agency agrees that the parallelepipeds referenced by the standard 
define the clearance needed to adequately use the emergency exit, and 
that there is not a safety benefit to require wheelchair securement 
anchorages to be placed outside the area bounded by the door opening. 
Therefore, in this final rule NHTSA is amending the language at 
S5.4.3.1(b) to allow the manufacturers the same flexibility for placing 
wheelchair securement anchorages as they currently have for maintaining 
the rear exit door clearance area required by FMVSS No. 217.
    The agency generally agrees with the approach suggested by Blue 
Bird, with one exception. Blue Bird's suggested language would not 
prohibit wheelchair anchorages that are recessed into the school bus 
floor. Today's final rule

[[Page 47133]]

defines the staging area by referencing the parallelepipeds described 
in S5.4.2.1(a)(1) (for school buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 lb) 
and S5.4.2.2 (for school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 lb or less). The 
parallelepipeds would be positioned flush with the floor, as described 
in S5.4.2.1(a), and with the rear surface of the parallelepiped tangent 
to the opening of the rear emergency exit door. Paragraph S5.4.3.1(b) 
is revised to prohibit the placement of any wheelchair securement 
anchorage both within the space occupied by the parallelepiped when it 
is so situated, and anywhere within a downward vertical projection of 
the parallelepiped. Thus, anchorages that are raised, flush, or 
recessed into the school bus floor beneath the parallelepiped will not 
be permitted.\3\ This amendment eliminates the need for Figures 6B and 
6D of the standard, and thus those figures are removed and reserved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The agency will check for compliance with S5.4.3.1(b) by 
positioning the parallelepiped laterally in the door exit using the 
procedures for evaluating compliance with the unobstructed opening 
requirements of S5.4.2.1 and S5.4.2.2. Thus, as long as there is a 
space laterally along the width of the emergency door that meets 
S5.4.3.1(b), the requirement is satisfied. We do not intend to 
restrict the placement of anchorages in any and all spaces along the 
width of the door that can accommodate the parallelepiped.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Do Not Block Label

1. General
    All three petitioners opposed the requirement that emergency exits 
windows be labeled with the words: ``DO NOT BLOCK.'' The petitioners 
believed that the standard should include objective criteria for 
determining whether a window is blocked, and should state whether or to 
what extent blockage is permitted of an emergency exit window by 
wheelchairs and other items, such as child restraints, upper tether 
straps of child restraints, and passenger torso belts.
    Agency response: As explained in the April 19, 2002 final rule, the 
``do not block'' label originated in part from NHTSA's concern with 
track seating. With track systems, the configuration of the seats is 
determined by the user, not the school bus manufacturer. NHTSA was 
concerned about modifiers possibly installing anchorages in positions 
that would result in the blockage of side emergency exits by 
wheelchairs, so the agency adopted the warning label requirement to 
alert modifiers and users to the potential hazards of such 
installation. 67 FR at 19347.
    The inadvertent or unknowing blockage of or impeding emergency 
egress from school buses by persons other than the original 
manufacturer of the school bus was the potentially unsafe behavior that 
the label was intended to forestall. The warning label provides the 
public a heightened awareness about the need for keeping emergency 
exits clear, from persons installing items such as aftermarket 
wheelchair securement devices, wheelchairs, or school bus seats, to 
school bus drivers, monitors, and students. We do not agree with the 
petitioners that further clarification is needed in the standard on 
precisely what ``do not block'' means or how wheelchairs, tether 
straps, belts or other devices should be situated near emergency exits. 
The label is simple and clear. The agency believes that requiring more 
wording to describe how various items that are carried in school buses 
may or may not partially block an exit could reduce users' desire to 
read the label or ability to understand it.
2. Notice of a Window Labeling Requirement
    Blue Bird believed that the NPRM did not provide notice that the 
agency was considering a labeling requirement for ``emergency 
windows.'' We disagree. At 64 FR 10606 of the NPRM, NHTSA sought 
comments: 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 (question 1); and on whether NHTSA should both 
require a warning label and prohibit the installation of wheelchair 
securement devices that make it possible to secure a wheelchair in an 
area where it will block access to an emergency exit (question 6). 
FMVSS No. 217 ``emergency exits'' includes windows as well as doors. 
Thus, the NPRM sought comments on labeling requirements for both 
windows as well as doors. Furthermore, the intent of the rulemaking was 
to increase the likelihood that emergency exits will not be blocked so 
as to hamper occupants' ability to leave the bus. Emergency egress 
takes place through both emergency windows and doors. Thus, improved 
emergency egress requirements for both windows and doors, including by 
way of a ``do not block'' label, was contemplated by the NPRM.
3. Type 2 Seat Belts
    Blue Bird stated that vehicles used by Head Start agencies are 
required to be equipped with Type 2 seat belts (if the Head Start 
Allowable Alternative Vehicle's GVWR is 10,000 pounds or less) at each 
outboard passenger seating position. Blue Bird further stated that 
manufacturers may be faced with a requirement to install torso 
restraints at the outboard seating positions such that the belt may 
cross the area of a side emergency exit window, thereby potentially 
``blocking'' access to the emergency window.
    Agency response: If the upper torso belt would block access to an 
emergency window, we believe that an alternative design--one that does 
not block access--ought to be considered. Nothing has changed in FMVSS 
No. 217 concerning the blockage of access to side emergency exit 
windows. Manufacturers are currently required to take into account the 
placement of the upper torso belt so that the side emergency exit 
windows in buses with GVWRs of 10,000 pounds or less can meet the 
emergency exit-opening requirement now in FMVSS No. 217.
4. Effect on Child Restraint Installations
    The petitioners objected to a Do Not Block label in part due to a 
concern that confusion will arise as to how child restraints should be 
placed adjacent to an emergency exit window. Thomas Built stated that 
FMVSS No. 225, Child restraint anchorage systems, requires buses under 
10,000 pounds GVWR to be equipped with at least two ``LATCH'' \4\ 
attachments in rear seating positions in certain locations. Thomas 
Built believed that many customers who operate small buses for day care 
or Head Start will require LATCH attachments throughout the bus, and 
believed that customers of larger buses will order the anchorage 
systems throughout the bus. Blue Bird stated that although FMVSS No. 
225 does not require that school buses be equipped with the upper 
tether anchorage of a LATCH system, several States have indicated to 
school bus manufacturers that they will want such tether anchorages to 
be installed. Blue Bird further stated that the known methods of 
providing tether anchorages in school buses include: (1) Anchoring the 
tether to the side wall behind the child safety restraint system or, 
(2) anchoring the tether to the lap belts of the seat behind it. Blue 
Bird argued that

[[Page 47134]]

a tether strap in each of these scenarios could possibly constitute a 
blockage of the side emergency window if there is an emergency exit 
window at that rearward seating position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``LATCH'' stands for ``Lower Anchors and Tethers for 
Children,'' a term that was developed by child restraint 
manufacturers and retailers to refer to the standardized child 
restraint anchorage system required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 225 (49 CFR Sec.  571.225). This system has two lower 
anchorages, each consisting of a rigid round rod or bar onto which 
the connector of a child restraint system can be snapped. The bars 
are located at the intersection of the vehicle seat cushion and seat 
back. For passenger vehicles, there is also an upper tether anchor 
to which the top tether of a child restraint system can be hooked. 
However, school buses are not required to have the top tether 
anchorage of the LATCH system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency response: In our ``Guideline for the Safe Transportation of 
Pre-school Age Children in School Buses,'' we recommend that child 
restraint systems not be placed next to emergency exit windows in 
school buses. NHTSA believes that it is possible that placement of a 
child restraint in the seat next to an emergency exit window could 
impede occupant exit in an emergency. If a Do Not Block label helps to 
prevent school bus users from installing child restraints such that the 
restraints themselves or the tether straps could impede emergency 
egress from the exit, the label will have achieved its purpose. 
Accordingly, the agency is not convinced that emergency window exits 
should not be labeled with the Do Not Block label due to the label's 
potential effect on the placement of child restraints.
    Thomas Built and Blue Bird stated that there are situations where 
their customers require LATCH attachments at all seating positions in 
school buses that require emergency exit windows, and therefore, it may 
be necessary to place child restraint attachments next to emergency 
exit windows. NHTSA does not believe that there would be a huge demand 
from customers of the large school buses who would order LATCH in all 
seating positions throughout the bus. Typically, most school districts 
would only order school buses with a couple of rows of seating equipped 
with a mechanism to install child restraint systems. However, if there 
is a situation where the customer wants a LATCH system installed in 
every seating position in buses with a seating capacity greater than 
46, there is an option to install side emergency exit doors in these 
buses instead of emergency exit windows.
5. School Buses Without Wheelchair Anchorages
    AmTran believes that the ``DO NOT BLOCK'' label should be required 
on emergency exits in all school buses with or without wheelchair 
anchorages. The agency intended this rulemaking to apply only to new 
school buses manufactured or sold with one or more wheelchair anchorage 
positions. To minimize misunderstandings about which new school buses 
must be labeled, this final rule clarifies S5.5.3(d) to make it clear 
that the label applies only to ``school buses manufactured or sold as 
new with one or more wheelchair anchorage positions.''

VIII. Statutory Basis for the Final Rule

    We have issued this final rule pursuant to our statutory authority. 
Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety (49 U.S.C. 30101 et 
seq.), the Secretary of Transportation is responsible for prescribing 
motor vehicle safety standards that are practicable, meet the need for 
motor vehicle safety, and are stated in objective terms. 49 U.S.C. 
30111(a). When prescribing such standards, the Secretary must consider 
all relevant, available motor vehicle safety information. 49 U.S.C. 
30111(b). The Secretary must also consider whether a proposed standard 
is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the type of motor 
vehicle or motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed and the 
extent to which the standard will further the statutory purpose of 
reducing traffic accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from 
traffic accidents. Id. Responsibility for promulgation of Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards was subsequently delegated to NHTSA. 49 U.S.C. 
105 and 322; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
    As a Federal agency, before promulgating changes to a Federal motor 
vehicle safety standard, NHTSA also has a statutory responsibility to 
follow the informal rulemaking procedures mandated in the 
Administrative Procedure Act at 5 U.S.C. Section 553. Among these 
requirements are Federal Register publication of a general notice of 
proposed rulemaking, and giving interested persons an opportunity to 
participate in the rulemaking through submission of written data, views 
or arguments. After consideration of the public comments, we must 
incorporate into the rules adopted, a concise general statement of the 
rule's basis and purpose.
    The agency has carefully considered these statutory requirements in 
promulgating this final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration 
to amend FMVSS No. 217. As previously discussed in detail, this 
document responds to petitions for reconsideration of a final rule that 
we issued in April 2002. We have carefully considered the petitions 
before issuing today's document. As a result, we believe that this 
final rule reflects consideration of all relevant available motor 
vehicle safety information.

IX. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. 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 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, we believe that this final rule; 
response to petitions for reconsideration will not have any cost 
effects on school bus manufacturers. When it amended FMVSS No. 222 to 
specify requirements for wheelchair securement anchorages and devices, 
NHTSA did not envision that the anchorages would be placed so that 
wheelchair securement anchorages and devices or secured wheelchairs 
would block access to any exit door. 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

[[Page 47135]]

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 
impact of adopting the amendments made 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 final rule are so minimal 
(i.e., the annual effect on the economy is less than $100 million), no 
further regulatory evaluation is necessary.

B. 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'' is 
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 
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 will 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 motor vehicle 
manufacturers, not to the States or local governments. Thus, the 
requirements of Section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this 
final rule.

C. Executive Order 13045 (Economically Significant Rules 
Disproportionately 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 planned rule on children, and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives considered by us.
    This final 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 or safety risks that disproportionately 
affect children on schoolbuses with wheelchair securement anchorages. 
However, this rulemaking serves to reduce, rather than increase, that 
risk.

D. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12778, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' we 
have considered whether this final rule has any retroactive effect. We 
conclude that it does 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.

E. 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 would 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 would not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    The agency 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 final rule will 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 final rule will 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 will be a 
small net loss of passenger capacity.

F. National Environmental Policy Act

    We have analyzed this rule 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.

G. 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 final 
rule does not impose new collection of information requirements for 
which a 5 CFR part 1320 clearance must be obtained. The term 
``collection of information'' does not include the ``public disclosure 
of information originally supplied by the

[[Page 47136]]

Federal government to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure to 
the public.'' (See 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2).) Since NHTSA is specifying the 
exact language with which school bus manufacturers must label their 
emergency exit doors and emergency exit windows, the labels are not 
collections of information and do not need clearance from OMB.

H. 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 not any voluntary consensus standards that we can use in 
this final rule. We have searched the SAE's Recommended Practices 
applicable to buses, and have not found any 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.

I. 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 rule is not subject to the requirements of 
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

J. 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?

    In the March 5, 1999 (64 FR 10604)(DOT Docket No. NHTSA-99-5157) 
and April 19, 2002 (67 FR 19343)(DOT Docket No. NHTSA-99-5157) final 
rule, we raised the plain language issues stated above. None of the 
public commenters addressed plain language concerns in their NPRM 
comments.

K. 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.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

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

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards (49 CFR part 571) are amended as set forth below.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation 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.


0
2. Section 571.217 is amended by revising in S5.4.3.1, paragraph (b); 
removing, in S5.4.3.1, paragraph (c); revising in S5.5.3, paragraph 
(d); and removing and reserving Figures 6B and 6D of this section.


Sec.  571.217  Bus emergency exits and window retention and release.

* * * * *
    S5.4.3.1 * * *
* * * * *
    (b) In the case of rear emergency exit doors in school buses, using 
the parallelepiped described in S5.4.2.1(a)(1) (for school buses with a 
GVWR greater than 10,000 lb) or S5.4.2.2 (for school buses with a GVWR 
of 10,000 lb or less), when the parallelepiped is positioned, as 
described in S5.4.2.1(a), flush with the floor and with the rear 
surface of the parallelepiped tangent to the opening of the rear 
emergency exit door, there must not be any portion of a wheelchair 
securement anchorage within the space occupied by the parallelepiped or 
within the downward vertical projection of the parallelepiped, as shown 
in Figure 6C.
* * * * *
    S5.5.3 School Bus.
* * * * *
    (d) On the inside surface of each school bus with one or more 
wheelchair anchorage positions, there shall be a label directly beneath 
or above each ``Emergency Door'' or ``Emergency Exit'' designation 
specified by paragraph (a) of S5.5.3 of this standard for an emergency 
exit door or window. The label shall state in letters at least 25 mm 
(one inch) high, the words ``DO NOT BLOCK'' in

[[Page 47137]]

a color that contrasts with the background of the label.
* * * * *

    Issued on: August 8, 2005.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-16016 Filed 8-11-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P