[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 114 (Monday, June 15, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32694-32695]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15839]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA 98-3791]
New Flyer of America, Inc.; Grant of Application for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
New Flyer of America, Inc., of Crookston, Minnesota, has determined
that 115 buses failed to comply with 49 CFR 571.217, Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, ``Bus Emergency Exits and
Window Retention and Release,'' and has filed an appropriate report
pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, ``Defect and Noncompliance Reports.'' New
Flyer petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) to be exempted from the notification and remedy requirements of
49 U.S.C. Chapter 301--``Motor Vehicle Safety'' on the basis that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Notice of receipt of the application was published, with a 30-day
comment period, on October 23, 1997, in the Federal Register (62 FR
55303). NHTSA received no comments on this application during the 30-
day comment period.
FMVSS No. 217, Paragraph S5.2.2.1 requires that buses other than
school buses provide an emergency exit area, in total square
centimeters, of at least 432 times the number of designated seating
positions on the bus. It requires at least that 40 percent of the
emergency exit area be distributed on each side of the bus. It also
limits the amount of area to 3,458 square centimeters that can be
credited for an emergency exit, regardless of exit area.
During the 1995-1997-model years, New Flyer produced 115 transit
buses, models D35LF (Diesel 35 ft Low Floor) and C35LF (CNG 35 ft Low
Floor) which do not comply with FMVSS No. 217. The subject transit
buses have only one emergency exit on the right side of the bus instead
of the two, as required by the standard.
New Flyer supported its application for an inconsequential
noncompliance with the following:
1. The buses exceed the exit total area requirements on all
sides. The left side has two exit windows for a total of 25,000
square centimeters or 4.67 times the required area. The right side
has one exit window with 12,500 square centimeters of exit area or
2.33 times the required area. The standard does not allow any one
exit to claim more than 3,458 square centimeters. Therefore, the
right side of the bus does not have the required number of emergency
exits although it exceeds the required area. Each bus has two roof
exits, where the standard only requires one roof exit. Overall, the
buses have 3.28 times the required exit area.
2. Retrofitting these buses to comply with the standard would
require modifying and retesting the existing exit door or replacing
the right side window with an emergency exit window, which is not
possible because the wheel housing limits accessibility. The seating
position relative to the window allows for an easy exit. If the
window was accidentally opened, there is potential for someone to
fall out of the bus. Modifying the exit door to conform to the
release force requirements is a possible solution, but would require
redesigning the door. Considering the bus already has 3.28 times the
required exit area, modifying the buses to include an additional
exit would not add to motor vehicle safety.
3. New Flyer does not believe that the buses are a safety hazard
because they have excessive accessible emergency exit area. These
buses are operated by transit authorities with trained professional
drivers; none are operated by the general public. New Flyer has a
close relationship with the operators of the buses and is
continuously informed of any problems or concerns, and has never had
an incident or complaint involving the number or location of
emergency exits.
NHTSA considers the safety of the public in transit buses to be of
great importance because these buses are intended for daily service and
therefore carry hundreds of people each day. In considering whether to
grant or deny this petition, the agency looked at the various
conditions that would require an emergency evacuation. The agency
identified three types of situations in which the evacuation of a bus
may be necessary:
1. Minor crashes or mechanical failures. These may result in all
passengers leaving the bus. Since evacuation time is not a major
concern, all passengers would likely exit from one of the service
doors.
2. Major crashes. It is likely to be important for all bus
passengers to leave the bus. Evacuation is important, but conditions
indicate that it can be done in an orderly fashion. Again, all of the
passengers would likely exit from either service door.
3. Catastrophic crashes (e.g., fires or submersions). All bus
passengers must evacuate the bus as quickly as possible. Evacuation
time is the major concern, passengers would likely exit from any
opening available.
The primary safety purpose of requiring the 40 percent distribution
of emergency exits area on each side of a bus is to ensure that
passengers have sufficient emergency exit openings to escape, should
the bus become involved in an incident where the bus would need to be
evacuated quickly. This provision in FMVSS No. 217 ensures that
emergency exits are distributed throughout the bus and not all on one
side. These buses have two emergency exit windows on the left side, one
emergency exit window on the right side and two roof exits. Thus, the
buses have the minimum number of emergency exits required by FMVSS No.
217. However, these exits were not distributed properly. Instead of a
second emergency exit on the right side, these buses have an additional
roof exit. This additional roof exit would provide for much needed
emergency exit openings should the bus occupants need to evacuate due
to a rollover incident. While this additional roof exit is not required
by the standard, it does provide for an additional level of safety in
the above situation.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the
applicant has met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance it
described above is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, its application is granted, and the applicant is exempted
from providing the notification of the noncompliance that is required
by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and from remedying the
[[Page 32695]]
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120.
(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120, with delegations of authority at 49 CFR
1.50 and 501.8)
Issued on: June 9, 1998.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 98-15839 Filed 6-12-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P