Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release, 19132-19138 [2012-7626]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
19132
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Defense Acquisition Regulations
System
or delivery-order contract award over
$103 million. These requirements affect
only the internal operating procedures
of the Government.
48 CFR Part 216
III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
RIN 0750–AH67
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and
13563 direct agencies to assess all costs
and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and
equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the
importance of quantifying both costs
and benefits, of reducing costs, of
harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This is not a significant
regulatory action and, therefore, was not
subject to review under section 6(b) of
E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and
Review, dated September 30, 1993. This
rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C.
804.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement: Repeal of
Case-by-Case Reporting (DFARS Case
2012–D020)
Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, Department of
Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
DoD is issuing a final rule
amending the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement
(DFARS) to implement a section of the
National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2012, to
remove a congressional notification
requirement for single source task- or
delivery-order contract awards over
$103 million.
DATES: Effective Date: March 30, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dustin Pitsch, telephone 571–372–6094.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Background
This rule implements section 809(b)
of the NDAA for FY 2012 (Pub. L. 112–
81), which removes the requirement that
the head of the agency must notify the
congressional defense committees
within 30 days for each single source
task- or delivery-order contract award
over $103 million.
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act does
not apply to this rule because this final
rule does not constitute a significant
DFARS revision as defined at FAR
1.501–1, and 41 U.S.C. 1707 does not
require publication for public comment.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
The rule does not contain any
information collection requirements that
require the approval of the Office of
Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
chapter 35).
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
II. Publication of This Final Rule for
Public Comment Is Not Required by
Statute
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 216
‘‘Publication of proposed
regulations’’, 41 U.S.C. 1707, is the
statute that applies to the publication of
the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
Paragraph (a)(1) of the statute requires
that a procurement policy, regulation,
procedure or form (including an
amendment or modification thereof)
must be published for public comment
if it relates to the expenditure of
appropriated funds, and has either a
significant effect beyond the internal
operating procedures of the agency
issuing the policy, regulation, procedure
or form, or has a significant cost or
administrative impact on contractors or
offerors. This final rule is not required
to be published for public comment,
because the rule merely removes the
requirement for the head of the agency
to notify congressional defense
committees for each single source task-
Mary Overstreet,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations
System.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:54 Mar 29, 2012
Jkt 226001
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR Part 216 is
amended as follows:
PART 216—TYPES OF CONTRACTS
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR
part 216 is revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR
chapter 1.
2. Section 216.504 is revised to read
as follows:
■
216.504
Indefinite-quantity contracts.
(c)(1)(ii)(D) Limitation on singleaward contracts. The authority to make
the determination authorized in FAR
16.504(c)(1)(ii)(D)(1) shall not be
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
delegated below the level of the senior
procurement executive.
[FR Doc. 2012–7555 Filed 3–29–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA–2012–0037]
RIN 2127–AK20
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Bus Emergency Exits and
Window Retention and Release
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
In this final rule, which was
preceded by a notice of proposed
rulemaking, NHTSA is making several
housekeeping amendments to the
Federal motor vehicle safety standard
for bus emergency exits. First, based on
a proposal made in response to a
petition for rulemaking from the School
Bus Manufacturers Technical Council
(SBMTC), NHTSA amends 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, rather than
located in the middle of the door.
Second, this final rule also clarifies the
standard as to the number of force
applications that are required to open a
window or roof emergency exit. Third,
in response to a comment on the
proposed rule, this document makes a
technical correction by removing a
reference to a no-longer existent figure.
These amendments correct or clarify the
requirements of the standard. We
believe most, if not all, school buses are
currently designed to meet the corrected
or clarified requirements.
DATES: The effective date is April 1,
2013. Manufacturers are provided
optional early compliance with this
final rule beginning March 30, 2012.
Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions
for reconsideration of this final rule
must be received no later than May 14,
2012.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration
of this final rule must refer to the docket
number set forth above and be
submitted to: Administrator, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\30MRR1.SGM
30MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
For
non-legal issues, Mr. Conor McCafferty,
Office of Crashworthiness Standards
(telephone: 202–366–1046) (fax: 202–
493–2990), NVS–113. For legal issues,
Ms. Deirdre Fujita, 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:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Table of Contents
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
I. Background
II. Location of Exterior Release Mechanism
(Exterior Handle)
III. Figure 3D
IV. Window or Roof Emergency Exit Release
V. Removing Reference to Figure 6B
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
I. Background
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, ‘‘Bus
emergency exits and window retention
and release,’’ 1 applies to buses,
including school buses, except buses
manufactured for the purpose of
transporting persons under physical
restraint. The purpose of the standard is
to minimize the likelihood of occupants
being thrown from the bus and to
provide a means of readily accessible
emergency egress. The standard
establishes requirements for the
retention of windows other than
windshields in buses, and establishes
operating forces, opening dimensions,
and markings for bus emergency exits.
In this final rule, we make several
housekeeping amendments to FMVSS
No. 217. First, NHTSA amends the
standard to specify that the exterior
release (the exterior handle) for school
bus rear emergency exit doors may be
located at the side opposite the door
hinges, rather than located in the
middle of the door. Second, this final
rule also clarifies the standard as to the
number of force applications that are
required to open a window or roof
emergency exit. Third, this document
removes a reference to a no-longer
existent figure.
The notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) upon which this final rule is
based was published on December 28,
2009 (74 FR 68558) (Docket No.
NHTSA–2009–0190).
We received seven comments on the
NPRM from school bus manufacturers
and private individuals.2 None of the
1 49
CFR 571.217.
received comments from Blue Bird
Body Company (Blue Bird), Thomas Built Buses
(Thomas Built), the National Truck Equipment
Association (NTEA), SBMTC, and W. Coffey, N.
2 NHTSA
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:54 Mar 29, 2012
Jkt 226001
commenters opposed the proposal,
several made suggested changes to
specific provisions, and some
commented on matters beyond the
scope of the rulemaking.
II. Location of Exterior Release
Mechanism (Exterior Handle)
FMVSS No. 217 (S5.3.3.1(a)) specifies
requirements 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 that both the interior and
exterior releases (handles) for rear
emergency exit doors be located in the
center of the door.3 However, school bus
manufacturers have always understood
the standard as requiring only interior
releases (interior handles) to be in the
center of the door. They believed that
the exterior handle may be near the edge
of the door on the side opposite the
hinges. They further believed that an
exterior release (exterior handle) so
located provides more leverage and may
be designed to require less force to open
the rear emergency exit door as
compared to an exterior handle located
in the center of the door.4
SBMTC petitioned the agency to
amend FMVSS No. 217 to specify that
the exterior release (exterior handle) for
school bus rear emergency exit doors
may be located near the edge of the door
on the side opposite the hinges.
Regarding interior releases (interior
Horner, and J. Walsh. This final rule does not
discuss issues raised by commenters that were
beyond the scope of the rulemaking, such as
suggested ideas to possibly improve emergency
egress or ideas to improve overall school bus
occupant protection. Comments can be read at
Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0190.
3 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 sideview 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 (front view),
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.
4 All things being equal, 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
19133
handles), the petitioner believed that the
interior handles should be in the center
of the door so that it is visible to bus
occupants and not obscured by seat
backs if the door is wider than the bus’s
center aisle.
In the NPRM, we tentatively agreed
that the school bus manufacturers’
current practice of placing the exterior
rear emergency exit door release
(exterior 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 (exterior handles)
placed opposite the hinges would
require less force to pull open the door
for persons outside the school bus than
comparable releases located in the
center.
Accordingly, we proposed to amend
FMVSS No. 217 to specify that the
exterior release (exterior handle) for the
exit must only be in the high force
access region shown in the left-side
drawing (side view) of current Figure
3D; that is, only the vertical dimensions
of the high force region are specified for
the location of the exterior handle. We
sought comment on whether we should
require the exterior release to be no
further than 51 millimeters (mm) (two
inches) away from the edge of the door
opposite the hinges.
We also clarified the requirement that
the interior release (interior handle) for
a rear emergency exit must be in the
high force access region shown in both
drawings of current Figure 3D, i.e., in
the center of the door.
In addition, to make Figure 3D easier
to understand, we proposed to rename
the left-side drawing ‘‘Figure 3D(1)’’ and
the right-side drawing ‘‘Figure 3D(2).’’
Comments
All commenters responding to this
issue agreed with NHTSA that FMVSS
No. 217 should be amended so that it
specifies that the exterior release
(exterior handle) for school bus rear
emergency exit doors be located near
the edge of the door on the side opposite
the hinges.
However, no commenter supported
the idea to limit placement of the
exterior release to no further than 51
mm (two inches) from the edge of the
door opposite the hinges. SBMTC stated
that the NPRM did not give an
explanation on the reasoning behind
this proposal. SBMTC stated that the
shaft of the exterior emergency door
release handle on the majority of school
buses is located approximately 76 to 127
mm (3 to 5 inches) from the edge of the
door. SBMTC also noted that due to
current school bus emergency door
construction and because emergency
E:\FR\FM\30MRR1.SGM
30MRR1
19134
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
exits are already required to meet
release forces as specified in FMVSS
No. 217, it does not see any benefit or
need to limit the maximum distance
from the edge of the door to 51 mm (two
inches).
Thomas Built believed that the 51 mm
(two inch) limitation was arbitrary.
Thomas Built requested that the edge
dimension be determined by each
individual manufacturer’s design
parameters because it would give the
manufacturers some tolerance and
flexibility in their respective designs.
NTEA believed that most
manufacturers’ exterior release handles
on emergency doors are farther away
than 51 mm (two inches) from the edge
of the door. NTEA is unaware of any
safety need to require design changes
such that exterior release handles are no
further than 51 mm (2 inches) from the
edge of the door.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Response
We are adopting the proposed
amendment, except for the requirement
that the exterior release handle must be
no further than 51 mm (two inches)
away from the edge of the door. The
purpose of the limitation would have
been to ensure the emergency exit door
opened within the force requirements
set forth in the standard. After
reviewing the comments, we agree with
SBMTC that the force requirements
specified in the standard for opening
emergency exits are sufficient to meet
this goal. It is the opening force, not the
closeness to the edge of the door, that
is important for opening the door from
the outside.
We also agree with Thomas Built that
the location of the exterior release
handle should be determined by the
individual manufacturer’s design
parameters because the door design may
vary based on each manufacturer’s
model. Thus, specifying an exact
location would be overly design
restrictive when the standard already
prescribes the maximum force to open
the exit.
We received no comment on the issue
of the effective date for the changes to
the exterior release handle for the
school bus rear emergency exit door.
III. Figure 3D
In its comment, Blue Bird stated that
Figure 3D already has the required two
drawings and only needs to change the
width of the ‘‘ACCESS REGION FOR
HIGH FORCES’’ in the right-hand
drawing to span the entire door. Blue
Bird stated that the proposal to split
Figure 3D into Figures 3D(1) and 3D(2)
did not seem necessary and may
recreate the problem of using a single
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:54 Mar 29, 2012
Jkt 226001
two-dimensional drawing to
communicate three-dimensional
information.
Response
We do not agree with Blue Bird’s
suggestion that the high access region
depicted in Figure 3D(2) (right side
drawing) extends across the entire
width of the door. The access region
depicted in Figure 3D(2) (front view of
the access regions for the rear
emergency exit without rear
obstruction) provides the location
requirement for the interior release
mechanism (interior handle) and
ensures that it is in a location accessible
from inside of the school bus. As we
explained in the NPRM, the interior
release handle for the emergency exit
was intentionally required to be located
in the center of the door so that it is
visible to bus occupants and the view of
the handle is not obstructed by seat
backs. Further, as noted by SBMTC, the
exit would be opened from inside by a
pushing motion rather than a pulling
motion, so locating the handle in the
center of the door does not markedly
increase the difficulty of opening the
door.
Further, we do not agree with Blue
Bird’s suggestion not to split Figure 3D
into Figures 3D(1) and 3D(2). Splitting
Figure 3D into two parts allows
referencing the two figures individually,
to provide separate location
requirements for the interior and
exterior release mechanisms. As
explained earlier, we intentionally
described the interior handle as being in
the center of the door, as indicated by
Figures 3D(1) (side view) and 3D(2)
(front view). However, for exterior
release handles, which are not at risk of
being obscured, we are only specifying
the vertical dimensions of the high force
region and are providing flexibility to
the manufacturer to place the exterior
release handle anywhere along the
width of the door, as indicated by
Figure 3D(1) alone (with vertical
dimensions shown in the front view—
3D(2)).
IV. Window or Roof Emergency Exit
Release
FMVSS No. 217 (S5.3.3.2) specifies
the number, location, type, and
magnitude of force applications to open
emergency exit windows in all school
buses, and S5.3.3.3 does the same for
school bus emergency roof exits. At
S5.3.2, the standard specifies the
number, location, type and magnitude
of force applications to open emergency
exits in buses other than school buses.
These paragraphs of the standard
specify, among other things: ‘‘In the case
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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, 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 is that, because of the
current wording of S5.3.3.2, the
paragraph 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.
The NPRM proposed to change the
wording so that it states more clearly
what the agency had intended. NHTSA
proposed to make S5.3.2, S5.3.3.2, and
S5.3.3.3 clearer by separating the
requirements for operating an exit’s
release mechanism(s) from the
requirements for opening the exit.
NHTSA proposed to specify, for exits
with one release mechanism, the exit
must require two force applications to
open: One to release the mechanism and
another to open the exit. For exits with
two release mechanisms, there must be
a total of three force applications to
open the exit: One force application
must be applied to each of the two
mechanisms to release the mechanism,
and another force must be applied to
open the exit.
We viewed this rulemaking as
primarily a housekeeping measure and
stated our belief in the NPRM that all
emergency window and roof exits are
currently designed to meet the
requirements as the agency had
intended to be understood.
Comments
We received no comments on this
issue. Thus, no manufacturer disagreed
with our statement that all emergency
window and roof exits are currently
designed to meet the existing
requirements regarding the number of
E:\FR\FM\30MRR1.SGM
30MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
force applications. Blue Bird stated
generally that it was ‘‘supportive of this
NPRM’s housekeeping measures,’’
which we assume refers to this as well
as the other proposed amendments.
Response
For the reasons in the NPRM, we are
adopting the changes proposed in the
December 2009 NPRM.
V. Removing Reference to Figure 6B
In its comment, Blue Bird pointed out
another housekeeping measure. In an
August 12, 2005 final rule (70 FR
47131), we amended FMVSS No. 217
by, among other things, removing Figure
6B from the standard. Inadvertently, we
did not remove a reference to Figure 6B
in the regulatory text of S5.4.3.1(a).
Today’s final rule corrects S5.4.3.1(a) by
removing the reference to Figure 6B.
VI. 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). This final rule is of
a housekeeping nature. We believe that
all vehicles currently meet the changes
discussed in this final rule and that
there will be no costs associated with
this rule.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 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), except as provided below.
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 for a
rule 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:54 Mar 29, 2012
Jkt 226001
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
NHTSA has considered the effects of
this rulemaking action under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby
certify that this final rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The basis for the certification is that this
final rule is of a housekeeping nature. It
does not change any FMVSS No. 217
requirements that school bus
manufacturers are now meeting.
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 does not have any significant
impact on the quality of the human
environment.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has examined today’s final
rule 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
this housekeeping rulemaking does not
have sufficient federalism implications
to warrant consultation with State and
local officials or the preparation of a
federalism summary impact statement.
The final rule does not have
‘‘substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.’’
NHTSA rules can preempt in 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
by Congress that preempts any nonidentical State legislative and
administrative law addressing the same
aspect of performance.
The express preemption provision
described above is subject to a savings
clause under which ‘‘[c]ompliance with
a motor vehicle safety standard
prescribed under this chapter does not
exempt a person from liability at
common law.’’ 49 U.S.C. 30103(e)
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
19135
Pursuant to this provision, State
common law tort causes of action
against motor vehicle manufacturers
that might otherwise be preempted by
the express preemption provision are
generally preserved. However, the
Supreme Court has recognized the
possibility, in some instances, of
implied preemption of such State
common law tort causes of action by
virtue of NHTSA’s rules, even if not
expressly preempted. This second way
that NHTSA rules can preempt is
dependent upon there being an actual
conflict between an FMVSS and the
higher standard that would effectively
be imposed on motor vehicle
manufacturers if someone obtained a
State common law tort judgment against
the manufacturer, notwithstanding the
manufacturer’s compliance with the
NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA
standards established by an FMVSS are
minimum standards, a State common
law tort cause of action that seeks to
impose a higher standard on motor
vehicle manufacturers will generally not
be preempted. However, if and when
such a conflict does exist—for example,
when the standard at issue is both a
minimum and a maximum standard—
the State common law tort cause of
action is impliedly preempted. See
Geier v. American Honda Motor Co.,
529 U.S. 861 (2000).
Pursuant to Executive Order 13132
and 12988, NHTSA has considered
whether this rule could or should
preempt State common law causes of
action. The agency’s ability to announce
its conclusion regarding the preemptive
effect of one of its rules reduces the
likelihood that preemption will be an
issue in any subsequent tort litigation.
To this end, the agency has examined
the nature (e.g., the language and
structure of the regulatory text) and
objectives of today’s rule and finds that
this rule prescribes only housekeeping
amendments. Accordingly, NHTSA does
not intend that this rule preempt state
tort law.
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
E:\FR\FM\30MRR1.SGM
30MRR1
19136
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) 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
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 today’s
final rule. Thus, the Paperwork
Reduction Act does not apply.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 final rule clarifies 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:54 Mar 29, 2012
Jkt 226001
(adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). This final rule will 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.
Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 18, 2001) applies to any
rulemaking that: (1) Is determined to be
economically significant as defined
under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have
a significantly adverse effect on the
supply of, distribution of, or use of
energy; or (2) that is designated by the
Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs as a
significant energy action. This
rulemaking is not subject to E.O. 13211.
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.
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).
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Labeling, Motor vehicle safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA amends 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;
b. Adding S5.3.2.1(a) and S5.3.2.1(b);
c. Revising S5.3.3.1(a);
d. Revising S5.3.3.2;
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
e. Adding S5.3.3.2.1(a) and
S5.3.3.2.1(b);
■ f. Revising S5.3.3.3;
■ g. Adding S5.3.3.3.1(a) and
S5.3.3.3.1(b);
■ h. Revising S5.4.3.1(a); and,
■ i. Revising Figure 3D.
The revised and added text and figure
read as follows:
■
§ 571.217 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) 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.
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 and
perpendicular to the undisturbed exit
surface.
(3) Magnitude: Not more than 270 N.
S5.3.3 * * *
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
E:\FR\FM\30MRR1.SGM
30MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 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 shall 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 S5.3.3.2.1(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: 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. 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’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:54 Mar 29, 2012
Jkt 226001
position, a continuous warning shall be
audible at the driver’s seating position
and in the vicinity of that emergency
exit.
S5.3.3.2.1(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—Highforce 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.
S5.3.3.3 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 S5.3.3.3.1(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: 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
19137
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.
S5.3.3.3.1(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.
(3) Magnitude: Not more than 180 N.
*
*
*
*
*
S5.4.3.1 * * *
(a) In the case of side emergency exit
doors, any portion of the wheelchair
securement anchorage is within the
space bounded by the interior side wall
and emergency exit door opening,
transverse vertical planes 305 mm (12
inches) forward and rearward of the
center of any side emergency exit door
restricted area, and a longitudinal
vertical plane through the longitudinal
centerline of the school bus, as shown
in Figure 6A.
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\30MRR1.SGM
30MRR1
19138
*
*
*
accountability measures for the silver
hake, red hake, and offshore hake stocks
that are managed as a sub-set of the
Northeast Multispecies Fishery
Management Plan to meet the 2011
deadline in the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act.
*
Issued on: March 23, 2012.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012–7626 Filed 3–29–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DATES:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 110816505–2184–03]
RIN 0648–BB39
Fisheries of the Northeastern United
States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery
Management Plan; Secretarial
Amendment
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This final rule implements a
Secretarial Amendment to the Northeast
Multispecies Fishery Management Plan
to establish a mechanism for specifying
annual catch limits and accountability
measures for the small-mesh
multispecies fishery beginning in
fishing year 2012. This amendment is
necessary because the New England
Fishery Management Council has been
delayed in implementing a mechanism
to specify annual catch limits and
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:54 Mar 29, 2012
Jkt 226001
An environmental
assessment (EA) was prepared for the
Secretarial Amendment that describes
the proposed action and other
considered alternatives, and provides an
analysis of the impacts of the proposed
measures and alternatives. Copies of the
Secretarial Amendment, including the
EA and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA), are available on
request from Daniel Morris, Acting
Regional Administrator, Northeast
Regional Office, 55 Great Republic
Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. These
documents are also available online at
https://www.nero.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Moira Kelly, Fishery Policy Analyst,
(978) 281–9218.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
SUMMARY:
This rule is effective on April 30,
2012.
Background
The small-mesh multispecies complex
is composed of five stocks of three
species of hakes (northern silver hake,
southern silver hake, northern red hake,
southern red hake, and offshore hake),
and the fishery is managed through a
series of exemptions from the other
provisions of the Northeast Multispecies
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Fishery Management Plan (FMP).
Amendment 19 to the FMP was initiated
by the New England Fishery
Management Council (Council) in 2009
to establish a mechanism for specifying
annual catch limits (ACLs) and
accountability measures (AMs) for the
small-mesh multispecies fishery, as
required by the 2007 reauthorization of
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801
et seq. The Council postponed
development of the amendment in order
to include the results of an updated
stock assessment in November 2010.
Developing the amendment has been
further delayed by the Council due to
other pressing actions, and Amendment
19 is not scheduled to be implemented
until October 2012, well past the
Magnuson-Stevens Act’s deadline of
2011 for implementing ACLs and AMs.
NMFS has determined that it is
necessary and appropriate, under
section 304(c)(1)(A) of the MagnusonStevens Act, to develop a Secretarial
Amendment in order to bring the smallmesh multispecies fishery into
compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens
Act requirements concerning ACLs and
AMs. A description of the steps NMFS
took to comply with the MagnusonStevens Act requirements for
implementing a Secretarial Amendment
was included in the proposed rule
published on December 23, 2011 (76 FR
80318) and is not repeated here.
E:\FR\FM\30MRR1.SGM
30MRR1
ER30MR12.000</GPH>
*
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 62 (Friday, March 30, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19132-19138]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7626]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0037]
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).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this final rule, which was preceded by a notice of proposed
rulemaking, NHTSA is making several housekeeping amendments to the
Federal motor vehicle safety standard for bus emergency exits. First,
based on a proposal made in response to a petition for rulemaking from
the School Bus Manufacturers Technical Council (SBMTC), NHTSA amends
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, rather than located in the middle of the door. Second,
this final rule also clarifies the standard as to the number of force
applications that are required to open a window or roof emergency exit.
Third, in response to a comment on the proposed rule, this document
makes a technical correction by removing a reference to a no-longer
existent figure. These amendments correct or clarify the requirements
of the standard. We believe most, if not all, school buses are
currently designed to meet the corrected or clarified requirements.
DATES: The effective date is April 1, 2013. Manufacturers are provided
optional early compliance with this final rule beginning March 30,
2012.
Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration of
this final rule must be received no later than May 14, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must refer
to the docket number set forth above and be submitted to:
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
[[Page 19133]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, Mr. Conor
McCafferty, Office of Crashworthiness Standards (telephone: 202-366-
1046) (fax: 202-493-2990), NVS-113. For legal issues, Ms. Deirdre
Fujita, 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 Mechanism (Exterior Handle)
III. Figure 3D
IV. Window or Roof Emergency Exit Release
V. Removing Reference to Figure 6B
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
I. Background
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, ``Bus
emergency exits and window retention and release,'' \1\ applies to
buses, including school buses, except buses manufactured for the
purpose of transporting persons under physical restraint. The purpose
of the standard is to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown
from the bus and to provide a means of readily accessible emergency
egress. The standard establishes requirements for the retention of
windows other than windshields in buses, and establishes operating
forces, opening dimensions, and markings for bus emergency exits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 49 CFR 571.217.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this final rule, we make several housekeeping amendments to
FMVSS No. 217. First, NHTSA amends the standard to specify that the
exterior release (the exterior handle) for school bus rear emergency
exit doors may be located at the side opposite the door hinges, rather
than located in the middle of the door. Second, this final rule also
clarifies the standard as to the number of force applications that are
required to open a window or roof emergency exit. Third, this document
removes a reference to a no-longer existent figure.
The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) upon which this final rule
is based was published on December 28, 2009 (74 FR 68558) (Docket No.
NHTSA-2009-0190).
We received seven comments on the NPRM from school bus
manufacturers and private individuals.\2\ None of the commenters
opposed the proposal, several made suggested changes to specific
provisions, and some commented on matters beyond the scope of the
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ NHTSA received comments from Blue Bird Body Company (Blue
Bird), Thomas Built Buses (Thomas Built), the National Truck
Equipment Association (NTEA), SBMTC, and W. Coffey, N. Horner, and
J. Walsh. This final rule does not discuss issues raised by
commenters that were beyond the scope of the rulemaking, such as
suggested ideas to possibly improve emergency egress or ideas to
improve overall school bus occupant protection. Comments can be read
at Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0190.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Location of Exterior Release Mechanism (Exterior Handle)
FMVSS No. 217 (S5.3.3.1(a)) specifies requirements 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 that both the interior and exterior releases (handles) for
rear emergency exit doors be located in the center of the door.\3\
However, school bus manufacturers have always understood the standard
as requiring only interior releases (interior handles) to be in the
center of the door. They believed that the exterior handle may be near
the edge of the door on the side opposite the hinges. They further
believed that an exterior release (exterior handle) so located provides
more leverage and may be designed to require less force to open the
rear emergency exit door as compared to an exterior handle located in
the center of the door.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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 side-view 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 (front view), 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.
\4\ All things being equal, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SBMTC petitioned the agency to amend FMVSS No. 217 to specify that
the exterior release (exterior handle) for school bus rear emergency
exit doors may be located near the edge of the door on the side
opposite the hinges. Regarding interior releases (interior handles),
the petitioner believed that the interior handles should be in the
center of the door so that it is visible to bus occupants and not
obscured by seat backs if the door is wider than the bus's center
aisle.
In the NPRM, we tentatively agreed that the school bus
manufacturers' current practice of placing the exterior rear emergency
exit door release (exterior 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 (exterior
handles) placed opposite the hinges would require less force to pull
open the door for persons outside the school bus than comparable
releases located in the center.
Accordingly, we proposed to amend FMVSS No. 217 to specify that the
exterior release (exterior handle) for the exit must only be in the
high force access region shown in the left-side drawing (side view) of
current Figure 3D; that is, only the vertical dimensions of the high
force region are specified for the location of the exterior handle. We
sought comment on whether we should require the exterior release to be
no further than 51 millimeters (mm) (two inches) away from the edge of
the door opposite the hinges.
We also clarified the requirement that the interior release
(interior handle) for a rear emergency exit must be in the high force
access region shown in both drawings of current Figure 3D, i.e., in the
center of the door.
In addition, to make Figure 3D easier to understand, we proposed to
rename the left-side drawing ``Figure 3D(1)'' and the right-side
drawing ``Figure 3D(2).''
Comments
All commenters responding to this issue agreed with NHTSA that
FMVSS No. 217 should be amended so that it specifies that the exterior
release (exterior handle) for school bus rear emergency exit doors be
located near the edge of the door on the side opposite the hinges.
However, no commenter supported the idea to limit placement of the
exterior release to no further than 51 mm (two inches) from the edge of
the door opposite the hinges. SBMTC stated that the NPRM did not give
an explanation on the reasoning behind this proposal. SBMTC stated that
the shaft of the exterior emergency door release handle on the majority
of school buses is located approximately 76 to 127 mm (3 to 5 inches)
from the edge of the door. SBMTC also noted that due to current school
bus emergency door construction and because emergency
[[Page 19134]]
exits are already required to meet release forces as specified in FMVSS
No. 217, it does not see any benefit or need to limit the maximum
distance from the edge of the door to 51 mm (two inches).
Thomas Built believed that the 51 mm (two inch) limitation was
arbitrary. Thomas Built requested that the edge dimension be determined
by each individual manufacturer's design parameters because it would
give the manufacturers some tolerance and flexibility in their
respective designs.
NTEA believed that most manufacturers' exterior release handles on
emergency doors are farther away than 51 mm (two inches) from the edge
of the door. NTEA is unaware of any safety need to require design
changes such that exterior release handles are no further than 51 mm (2
inches) from the edge of the door.
Response
We are adopting the proposed amendment, except for the requirement
that the exterior release handle must be no further than 51 mm (two
inches) away from the edge of the door. The purpose of the limitation
would have been to ensure the emergency exit door opened within the
force requirements set forth in the standard. After reviewing the
comments, we agree with SBMTC that the force requirements specified in
the standard for opening emergency exits are sufficient to meet this
goal. It is the opening force, not the closeness to the edge of the
door, that is important for opening the door from the outside.
We also agree with Thomas Built that the location of the exterior
release handle should be determined by the individual manufacturer's
design parameters because the door design may vary based on each
manufacturer's model. Thus, specifying an exact location would be
overly design restrictive when the standard already prescribes the
maximum force to open the exit.
We received no comment on the issue of the effective date for the
changes to the exterior release handle for the school bus rear
emergency exit door.
III. Figure 3D
In its comment, Blue Bird stated that Figure 3D already has the
required two drawings and only needs to change the width of the
``ACCESS REGION FOR HIGH FORCES'' in the right-hand drawing to span the
entire door. Blue Bird stated that the proposal to split Figure 3D into
Figures 3D(1) and 3D(2) did not seem necessary and may recreate the
problem of using a single two-dimensional drawing to communicate three-
dimensional information.
Response
We do not agree with Blue Bird's suggestion that the high access
region depicted in Figure 3D(2) (right side drawing) extends across the
entire width of the door. The access region depicted in Figure 3D(2)
(front view of the access regions for the rear emergency exit without
rear obstruction) provides the location requirement for the interior
release mechanism (interior handle) and ensures that it is in a
location accessible from inside of the school bus. As we explained in
the NPRM, the interior release handle for the emergency exit was
intentionally required to be located in the center of the door so that
it is visible to bus occupants and the view of the handle is not
obstructed by seat backs. Further, as noted by SBMTC, the exit would be
opened from inside by a pushing motion rather than a pulling motion, so
locating the handle in the center of the door does not markedly
increase the difficulty of opening the door.
Further, we do not agree with Blue Bird's suggestion not to split
Figure 3D into Figures 3D(1) and 3D(2). Splitting Figure 3D into two
parts allows referencing the two figures individually, to provide
separate location requirements for the interior and exterior release
mechanisms. As explained earlier, we intentionally described the
interior handle as being in the center of the door, as indicated by
Figures 3D(1) (side view) and 3D(2) (front view). However, for exterior
release handles, which are not at risk of being obscured, we are only
specifying the vertical dimensions of the high force region and are
providing flexibility to the manufacturer to place the exterior release
handle anywhere along the width of the door, as indicated by Figure
3D(1) alone (with vertical dimensions shown in the front view--3D(2)).
IV. Window or Roof Emergency Exit Release
FMVSS No. 217 (S5.3.3.2) specifies the number, location, type, and
magnitude of force applications to open emergency exit windows in all
school buses, and S5.3.3.3 does the same for school bus emergency roof
exits. At S5.3.2, the standard specifies the number, location, type and
magnitude of 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, 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 is that, because of the current wording of S5.3.3.2, the
paragraph 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.
The NPRM proposed to change the wording so that it states more
clearly what the agency had intended. NHTSA proposed to make S5.3.2,
S5.3.3.2, and S5.3.3.3 clearer by separating the requirements for
operating an exit's release mechanism(s) from the requirements for
opening the exit. NHTSA proposed to specify, for exits with one release
mechanism, the exit must require two force applications to open: One to
release the mechanism and another to open the exit. For exits with two
release mechanisms, there must be a total of three force applications
to open the exit: One force application must be applied to each of the
two mechanisms to release the mechanism, and another force must be
applied to open the exit.
We viewed this rulemaking as primarily a housekeeping measure and
stated our belief in the NPRM that all emergency window and roof exits
are currently designed to meet the requirements as the agency had
intended to be understood.
Comments
We received no comments on this issue. Thus, no manufacturer
disagreed with our statement that all emergency window and roof exits
are currently designed to meet the existing requirements regarding the
number of
[[Page 19135]]
force applications. Blue Bird stated generally that it was ``supportive
of this NPRM's housekeeping measures,'' which we assume refers to this
as well as the other proposed amendments.
Response
For the reasons in the NPRM, we are adopting the changes proposed
in the December 2009 NPRM.
V. Removing Reference to Figure 6B
In its comment, Blue Bird pointed out another housekeeping measure.
In an August 12, 2005 final rule (70 FR 47131), we amended FMVSS No.
217 by, among other things, removing Figure 6B from the standard.
Inadvertently, we did not remove a reference to Figure 6B in the
regulatory text of S5.4.3.1(a). Today's final rule corrects S5.4.3.1(a)
by removing the reference to Figure 6B.
VI. 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). This final rule is of
a housekeeping nature. We believe that all vehicles currently meet the
changes discussed in this final rule and that there will be no costs
associated with this rule.
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
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), except as
provided below. 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 for a rule 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 Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this final rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The basis for the certification is that this final rule
is of a housekeeping nature. It does not change any FMVSS No. 217
requirements that school bus manufacturers are now meeting.
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 does not have any significant impact on
the quality of the human environment.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has examined today's final rule 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
this housekeeping rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or
the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The final
rule does not have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.''
NHTSA rules can preempt in 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 by Congress that preempts any
non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the
same aspect of performance.
The express preemption provision described above is subject to a
savings clause under which ``[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from
liability at common law.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(e) Pursuant to this
provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle
manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express
preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme
Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied
preemption of such State common law tort causes of action by virtue of
NHTSA's rules, even if not expressly preempted. This second way that
NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon there being an actual
conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that would
effectively be imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers if someone
obtained a State common law tort judgment against the manufacturer,
notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance with the NHTSA standard.
Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum
standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose
a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be
preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist--for
example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum
standard--the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly
preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
Pursuant to Executive Order 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered
whether this rule could or should preempt State common law causes of
action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the
preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that
preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation.
To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language
and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of today's rule
and finds that this rule prescribes only housekeeping amendments.
Accordingly, NHTSA does not intend that this rule preempt state tort
law.
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
[[Page 19136]]
retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6)
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 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
today's final rule. Thus, the Paperwork Reduction Act does 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 final rule clarifies 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 final rule will 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.
Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001) applies to any
rulemaking that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as
defined under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have a significantly adverse
effect on the supply of, distribution of, or use of energy; or (2) that
is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. This rulemaking is
not subject to E.O. 13211.
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.
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).
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Labeling, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as
follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
0
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.
0
2. Section 571.217 is amended by:
0
a. Revising S5.3.2;
0
b. Adding S5.3.2.1(a) and S5.3.2.1(b);
0
c. Revising S5.3.3.1(a);
0
d. Revising S5.3.3.2;
0
e. Adding S5.3.3.2.1(a) and S5.3.3.2.1(b);
0
f. Revising S5.3.3.3;
0
g. Adding S5.3.3.3.1(a) and S5.3.3.3.1(b);
0
h. Revising S5.4.3.1(a); and,
0
i. Revising Figure 3D.
The revised and added text and figure read as follows:
Sec. 571.217 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) 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.
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 and perpendicular to the undisturbed
exit surface.
(3) Magnitude: Not more than 270 N.
S5.3.3 * * *
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
[[Page 19137]]
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 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 shall 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 S5.3.3.2.1(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: 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. 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.
S5.3.3.2.1(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.
S5.3.3.3 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 S5.3.3.3.1(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: 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.
S5.3.3.3.1(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.
(3) Magnitude: Not more than 180 N.
* * * * *
S5.4.3.1 * * *
(a) In the case of side emergency exit doors, any portion of the
wheelchair securement anchorage is within the space bounded by the
interior side wall and emergency exit door opening, transverse vertical
planes 305 mm (12 inches) forward and rearward of the center of any
side emergency exit door restricted area, and a longitudinal vertical
plane through the longitudinal centerline of the school bus, as shown
in Figure 6A.
* * * * *
[[Page 19138]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR12.000
* * * * *
Issued on: March 23, 2012.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-7626 Filed 3-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
