ID: 20856.ztv

Mr. Mark Steele
Steele Enterprises
225 Merrill Place
Goshen, IN 46528

Dear Mr. Steele:

Thank you for your letter of October 21, 1999, enclosing a copy of my letter to you of October 7, 1999, regarding the unacceptability of automatic activation of rear lamps to signal that the ABS has been activated. You have asked the following three questions:

" Where does Standard 108 designate the method of actuation of the hazard warning signal?"

Tables I and III of Standard No. 108 require motor vehicles to be equipped with vehicular hazard warning signal operating units, as specified in SAE Recommended Practice J910, February 1966. Paragraph 1 of SAE J910 defines the operating unit, in part, as "a driver controlled device which causes all turn signal lamps to flash simultaneously." This means that the hazard warning signal unit must be activated by the driver and not automatically. Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays, complements this requirement by specifying identification and illumination requirements for hand-operated hazard warning signal controls.

"Since the hazard warning signal is one of the required signals per Standard 108 (ref. S5.1.1.5 and S5.5.5 . . .), how can the hazard warning signal be considered an 'additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment' per S5.1.3?"

When a lamp is modified to perform in a manner that differs from its original design, we consider it to be an "additional lamp" within the meaning of the phrase during the time of its non-standard operation. When it performs in a manner that differs from its original performance, it must not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment.

We don't understand your references to S5.1.1.5 (whose subject is turn signals).

"If you do not know the position, color and candlepower of the additional lights proposed, how can they be said to 'impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard?'"

We advised you on October 7 that S5.1.3 would prohibit motor vehicles from being equipped with separate lamps that flashed immediately after activation of the stop lamps because of "the potential to cause confusion and momentary hesitation in a following driver, and, in that sense, impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps." We do not need to consider "position, color and candlepower" to reach a conclusion that a steady burning stop signal immediately followed by a flashing signal from a new and unfamiliar lamp has the potential to cause confusion and momentary hesitation. It's the performance that is relevant.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref.108
d.12/6/99

ID: 20862.ztv

Herr P. Binder
Valeo
Stuttgarter Strasse 119
74321 Bietigheim-Bissingen
Germany

Dear Herr Binder:

This is in reply to your fax of October 29, 1999, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked whether certain rear lighting configurations comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The vehicle in question is equipped with a spoiler. You tell us that "if the rear foglamp/and or the Backup lamp will be switched on and the spoiler is in rest position (e.g. low speed or stationary vehicle) the spoiler will be extend[ed] first of all." The time to extend/restore the spoiler is about 4 seconds.

In the first configuration, your "Variant A," the rear fog lamp and/or backup lamp will be covered by the spoiler when it is not extended. The fog lamp is not an item of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 and it is immaterial to compliance with the standard if the spoiler covers it. The backup lamp, however, is an item of required equipment. Paragraph S5.1.3 prohibits motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. In order not to impair the effectiveness of the backup lamp, the spoiler must be deployed at the time the backup lamp is activated (i.e. when the transmission is placed in reverse gear), at least to a position that allows the entire backup lamp to be instantly visible. We read your description as indicating that the spoiler is deployed during a 4-second period after the backup lamp is switched on; this is not acceptable. Nor would a configuration be acceptable in which activation of the backup lamps is delayed for 4 seconds when the transmission is placed in reverse gear, to allow deployment of the spoiler.

In "Variant B," the rear fog lamp and/or backup lamp are located in the spoiler "and therefore movable." However, "if the spoiler is in rest position the lamps are covered, if the spoiler is extended the lamps are visible." We don't quite understand how a backup lamp integrated into the rear spoiler is covered when the spoiler is at rest, but, as we advised in the previous paragraph, the backup lamp must not be obscured by the spoiler at any time when the lamp has been activated, and the lamp is activated when the transmission is placed in reverse gear. Furthermore, the backup lamp as installed in the spoiler, must comply with all photometric and visibility requirements that apply to backup lamps when it is activated.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref.108
d.11/24/99

ID: 20867.ztv

Sig. Alessandro Rotta
USA Project
Two Wheelers Platform
Vehicle Division
Piaggio & C. S.p.A.
Viale Rinaldo Piaggio 25
56025 Pontedera (Pi)
Italy

Dear Signor Rotta:

This is in reply to your fax of November 3, 1999, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

You ask for a clarification of two issues related to the possibility of your company entering the American market with its motor scooters.

You first ask whether your equipment suppliers should perform tests in accredited laboratories, and, if so, which ones. You want to ensure, "if any accident occurs because of a component failure," that Piaggio "is relieved from the consequences and the supplier of the item will be considered solely responsible." You ask for suggestions in order to avoid such troubles.

Your question relates to the responsibility of a manufacturer under both the Federal law of the United States, and the separate laws of the individual states. Under Federal law, Piaggio must ensure that its motor scooters comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and certify that the scooters meet those standards. We do not tell you how to ensure compliance and to certify. Piaggio may certify on the basis of test reports from its supplier, or it may conduct its own tests, or it may certify on a basis other than testing, such as conducting engineering or computer studies. We do not characterize laboratories as "accredited," nor do we make recommendations. However, for your information, we have used the following independent laboratories to conduct compliance testing for us, for the standards indicated. For Standard No. 108 (lighting equipment): CalCoast Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 8702, Emeryville, CA 94662-0702 and Intertek Testing Service, P.O. Box 2040, Cortland, NY 13045-2040 ; Standard No. 111 (rearview mirrors): General Testing Laboratories, Route 1 Box 310, Colonial Beach, VA 22443; Standard No. 119 (tires): Smithers Scientific Services, Box 351, Ravenna, OH 44266; Standard No. 120 (rims): Veridian Engineering, Inc., 4455 Genesee Street, Buffalo, NY 14225, and General Testing Laboratories (see address above); and Standard No. 122 (motorcycle brake systems): Carter Engineering, 1134 Beech's Tavern Trail, Franklin, TN 37064. A more complete listing of independent laboratories which are conducting (or have conducted) tests for us is on our website at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/procedures/testlabs.html.

Piaggio must also ensure that the motor scooters are free of safety related defects. In the event that a noncompliance or safety related defect is deemed to exist in its vehicles, Piaggio is required to notify us and the owners of the motor scooters, and to remedy the problem, even if the noncompliant or defective component was manufactured by one of your suppliers.

Liability for accidents is a matter to be determined under the laws of the state where the accident occurred. In the event of a crash attributable to a defective component in a Piaggio, it is possible that both Piaggio and the component supplier would face action in a state court of law, even if the supplier had certified that component as complying with a Federal regulation. In short, there is no way that Piaggio can ensure that a supplier would be "solely" liable. There may be steps that Piaggio can take to reduce its exposure to liability, but that is not a matter on which we can advise you. To consider this matter further, Piaggio should consult a lawyer in the United States whose specialty is product liability law.

Your second question relates to motorcycle headlighting. You comment that S7.9 of Standard No. 108 and SAE J584 do not require any vertical or horizontal aiming mechanism for motorcycle headlamps, but that S7.8.2 does require it for "motor vehicles." You believe that this requirement does not apply to motorcycle headlamps and ask that we confirm your interpretation. You are correct. Although S7.8.2 states that "each headlamp shall be installed on a motor vehicle with a mounting and aiming mechanism ," we do not intend this paragraph to apply to motorcycle headlighting systems. These systems are covered by S7.9 and the certification requirements of S7.2(a). Although S7.9 allows motorcycles to be equipped with one half of a headlamp system used on four-wheeled motor vehicles, the headlamps need not be manufactured with aiming mechanisms if they are intended for motorcycle use (provided that these mechanisms are on the four-wheeled vehicle when such headlamps are installed). We have never required motorcycle headlighting systems to have aiming mechanisms, and we did not intend to create such a requirement when we issued S7.8.2.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref.108
d.12/6/99

ID: 20869NichirinDF

Mr. Frank Johnson
Executive Vice President
Nichirin Inc.
139 Copernicus Blvd.
Brantford, Ontario
N3P 1N4

Dear Mr. Johnson:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, "Brake Hoses," and its application to automotive vacuum brake tubing. I regret the delay in responding. You ask us to clarify the meaning of S9.2 of the standard and several requirements set forth for vacuum brake tubing.

S9.2 of Standard 106 states:

Each vacuum brake hose assembly or appropriate part thereof shall be capable of meeting any of the requirements set forth under this heading, when tested under the conditions of S11. and the applicable procedures of S10. However, a particular hose assembly or appropriate part thereof need not meet further requirements after having met the construction [sic] requirement (S9.2.1) and then having been subjected to any one of the requirements specified in S9.2.2 through S9.2.11.

You first ask whether S9.2.1 is a "construction" requirement, as referenced in S9.2, or a "constriction" requirement. The answer is the latter. S9.2 should refer to S9.2.1 as a "constriction" requirement.

You next ask whether S9.2 requires a vacuum brake hose assembly or appropriate part thereof to meet only one of the requirements specified in S9.2.2 through S9.2.11, or all of the requirements. The answer is generally, all of the requirements. Under the second sentence of S9.2, a particular hose assembly must be subjected to the constriction requirement of S9.2.1, followed by any one of the tests in S9.2.2 through S9.2.11, considering the appropriateness of the test for the assembly. Manufacturers must ensure that their brake hose assemblies or parts thereof will pass all of these tests. NHTSA explains, in 49 CFR 571.4 (copy enclosed), the use of the word "any" in our safety standards and regulations. That section states, in part, that: "The word any, used in connection with a range of values or set of items in the requirements, conditions, and procedures of the standards or regulations in this chapter, means generally the totality of the items or values, any one of which may be selected by the Administration for testing, except where clearly specified otherwise." (See 571.4 for several examples and further explanation.)

You question the applicability of the adhesion test (S9.2.9) and the deformation test (S9.2.10) to vacuum brake tubing. You believe that these tests were written for rubber hose and are inappropriate for brake tubing.

Automotive vacuum brake tubing is "brake hose" under Standard 106. The standard defines "brake hose" as (S4): "a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes...." Automotive vacuum brake tubing must meet all applicable requirements of Standard 106.

NHTSA has stated in past interpretations that brake hose (tubing) will not be tested to requirements that are obviously inapplicable. The adhesion test (S9.2.9) of Standard 106 is conducted on brake hose (tubing) that has more than one layer, such as an inner tube and outer cover. We have also stated that the adhesion test is not applicable if there are no layers in the hose's construction which could fail to adhere. (See enclosed copy of September 13, 1984, letter to R.S. Anson.)

You state that the deformation test (S9.2.10) of Standard 106 should not apply to brake tubing because "plastic under 'light duty' applications would not meet the first application of 50 lbs. force." In previous letters on this subject, NHTSA indicated that brake tubing is subject to the deformation requirement of the standard. (See enclosed copies of a July 8, 1974, letter to Bendix and June 19, 1981 and November 2, 1981, letters to Meiji Rubber and Chemical Company.) If you believe that the deformation test is inappropriate for plastic vacuum tubing, you may petition the agency to change the standard in this regard. However, such a petition must be accompanied with data and information to support your views. We will consider your information in deciding whether to initiate a rulemaking to amend the standard.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:106
d.4/21/2000

ID: 20872nhf

Mr. Robert J. Carlson
Warranty Specialist
City of Everett Transportation Services
Motor Vehicle Division
3200 Cedar Street
Everett, WA 98201-4599

Dear Mr. Carlson:

This responds to your letter requesting guidance as to whether you may obtain authorization to relocate or exchange the original manufacturer's driver's seat in your Ford/El Dorado National ParaTransit Buses, and as to whether you may add a driver's side air bag on-off switch. I regret the delay in responding.

You explain that these Paratransit vans are used to transport people with disabilities, some of whom are seated in wheelchairs. You explain that your drivers must often assist the passengers with entering and exiting the van and with fastening their seatbelts. Your drivers generally exit to the right of the driver's seat due to concerns with roadside traffic. You explain that your drivers have experienced difficulty entering and exiting the vehicle because of the lack of room between the seat and engine component cover. Your drivers have complained of back, shoulder and arm pain. You also explain that an ergonomist has examined the vehicles and determined that the seats could cause work-related claims. You state that your drivers have threatened to take union and legal action against the City, Ford, and El Dorado National (the manufacturer of the paratransit buses). You have had three Ford seat bases and two seat back frames fail since March 1999. You believe that these seat base and seat back frame failures are caused by the frequent side to side movement of the drivers entering and exiting the vehicles. You explain that you did not experience these problems with your old paratransit buses which were equipped with heavy-duty air ride seats.

You explain that you have investigated the possibility of either moving the existing seat back four inches or installing heavy-duty air ride seats. You state that Ford Motor Company has told you that any change to the driver's seat will void the vehicle's certification to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and release Ford of any safety or product liability. Specifically, you ask whether you may replace the original manufacturer's seats or move the existing seats back several inches, or add a driver's side air bag on-off switch. Your question is addressed below.

We would like to begin by explaining that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale.

After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation. Thus, a dealer or repair business could relocate or exchange the original manufacturer's driver's seat so long as such action did not negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The make inoperative prohibition does not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in modifying his or her vehicle. Therefore, it does not apply to any of the modifications you may perform to the vehicles you own and use for paratransit. Thus, you may modify the vehicle regardless of the effect on compliance with FMVSSs. You may, however, wish to consult a private attorney concerning any state law implications associated with modifying your vehicles, including potential liability implications, and whether such modifications will void your warranty with Ford.

We note that the purpose of the "make inoperative" prohibition is to ensure that current and subsequent owners and users of the vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Therefore, we encourage you not to unnecessarily compromise the safety of the vehicles you modify. Finally, if you sell the vehicles, we urge you to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider repositioning the seat and reinstalling any removed safety equipment if appropriate.

We are unsure why you would want to add a driver's side air bag on-off switch in the event that you relocated the driver seat rearward. Air bags create risks to persons who are too close to the air bag at the time of deployment. Relocation of the driver seat rearward would therefore appear to make it less likely, rather than more likely, that a person would be at risk from the air bag. It is possible, however, that relocation of the seat could adversely affect the air bag sensing system. Installing an air bag on-off switch would not resolve such a problem. We would urge you to consult with Ford about the potential consequences of relocating the seat and what actions could be taken to minimize any adverse safety consequences.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.7/7/00

ID: 208interpMT

Mr. Kevin Murphy #12810
PO Box 916
Shelby, MT 59474





Dear Mr. Murphy:

This responds to your letter requesting information regarding Federal regulations that govern seat belts in vehicles. You asked about the interaction between federal law and two provisions of Montana law - that requiring the use of seat belts and that disallowing evidence of non-use to be used in liability trials.

Federal law authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised that authority and established Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which requires safety belts to be installed at certain seating positions in new motor vehicles. Each new vehicle must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including the seat belt installation requirements in Standard No. 208.

However, requirements that relate to the use of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, such as seat belts, and issues relating to liability for failure to use seat belts are governed by State, not Federal, laws.

You refer in your letter to provisions of Montana law. I believe the provisions of Montana's law to which you refer include Sections 61-13-103 and 61-13-106 of Montana's Annotated Code. Section 61-13-103 provides that "No driver may operate a motor vehicle upon a highway of the state of Montana unless each occupant of a designated seating position is wearing a properly adjusted and fastened seatbelt," except pursuant to certain specified exemptions. Mont. Code Anno., 61-13-103(1), (2). Section 61-13-106 provides that "Evidence of compliance or failure to comply with 61-13-103 is not admissible in any civil action for personal injury or property damage resulting from the use of operation of a motor vehicle, and failure to comply with 61-13-103 does not constitute negligence." Mont. Code Anno., 61-13-106.

States may enact such provisions and they do not conflict with federal law. For further information about Montana's laws and the manner in which they are interpreted and applied, you may contact the Office of the Attorney General in the State of Montana.

We appreciate your interest in seat belt use. For more information on NHTSA's efforts to encourage seat belt use, please see our website -- www.NHTSA.dot.gov -- and www.buckleupamerica.org. Those sites contain valuable information and resources that you may find helpful in any efforts to bring awareness to this important issue in your area. You may also access information relating to the motor vehicle safety standards.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.4/17/02

ID: 20933.ztv

Mr. Richard H. Klein, P.E.
P.O. Box 527, Fairway Drive
Johnson, NY 10933

Dear Mr. Klein:

This is in reply to your letter of November 8, 1999. You ask for a citation to the equipment and visibility requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 that require intermediate side marker lamps and reflectors on buses whose overall length is more than 30 feet.

Intermediate side lighting devices may be provided on all motor vehicles regardless of length, but "are not required on vehicles less than 30 feet in overall length." (S5.1.1.3). The lamps must meet the requirements of SAE Standard J592e, Clearance, Side Marker, and Identification Lamps, July 1972; the reflectors must comply with SAE Standard J594f, Reflex Reflectors, January 1977. These standards have been incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. If the overall width of the vehicle is 80 inches or more, the devices must be located according to Table II of the standard; if less than 80 inches, according to Table IV. They must meet the photometric and visibility requirements specified in the SAE standards mentioned above.

If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref: 108
d.2/28/2000

ID: 20935.ztv

Scott R. Elkin, D.O.
P.O. Box 4595
Austin, TX 78765

Dear Mr. Elkin:

This is in reply to your letter of November 1, 1999, informing us that there is no audible indication when the turn signal system in your 1997 Saab is operating. Further, you report that the "light signals are often obscured by the steering wheel." You have asked us for a response.

Your Saab was required to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, "Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment," upon its manufacture and sale to you. Standard No. 108 requires a passenger car to be equipped with a turn signal system. The turn signal system in your car is required to meet the specifications of SAE Standard J590b, "Automotive Turn Signal Flashers," October 1965. These specifications have been incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108. SAE J590b requires a "visible pilot indicator" to be incorporated in the turn signal system. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, "Controls and Displays," requires the pilot indicator to be a pair of arrows that illuminate with a green color in the direction of the turn when the turn signal system is activated. Standard No. 101 requires that the indicator be visible to a vehicle operator when the driver is seated at the wheel and the driver's seat belt is fastened. We interpret this to require that the indicator be visible when the steering wheel is in the straight ahead position. There is no requirement that the indicator be visible under all operating conditions.

Standard No. 108, through SAE J590b, also permits, but does not require, an audible signal indicator when the turn signals are operating. For many vehicles, replacement turn signal flashers are available that are intended to be audible. You may wish to check your local auto parts retail stores to see if one is available for your car.

In summary, although the turn signal operating indicators in your car may not satisfy you, your vehicle appears to comply in this respect with Federal requirements.

If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.3/30/00

ID: 20937.ztv

[       ]

Dear:

This is in reply to your letter of November 4, 1999, asking whether a lighting device you describe would be permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You requested that we keep your letter and our reply "in strict confidence." As Taylor Vinson of this Office informed you on December 2, 1999, our interpretations are publicly available and must contain sufficient information for the general public to understand the question being asked and our response to it. We can ensure that publicly available copies of interpretation letters do not identify the writer or the company involved, and you agreed that we could provide you an interpretation on this basis.

You report that "tractor/trailer combinations today have areas around the vehicle where the driver cannot see other vehicles that are passing them. These blind spots in the mirror systems can cause accidents." You are interested in a lighting device that " would be mounted high on the side of a trailer and would shine a light beam (laser or other type of lighting device) down and across the adjacent traffic lane." The light "would shine on the hood of a passing vehicle" thereby providing the driver with a warning that they are in the tractor trailer's blind spot." The color of the light would be yellow, blue, or red.

Under Standard No. 108, non-standard lighting devices are permitted as original equipment if they do not impair the effectiveness of lighting devices required by Standard No. 108. Although this device would not appear to impair the effectiveness of standard lighting equipment, we are concerned that it might impair driver performance. Our principal reservation about new lighting concepts such as this is that they are unfamiliar to drivers and will cause confusion, diverting attention from critical driving tasks. In this case, a driver finding a red, amber, or blue light suddenly shining on the vehicle hood may instinctively turn to see where it is originating, or brake when there is no need to do so. When a vehicle is traveling faster than a trailer on which the device is mounted, the light beam could proceed from the hood into the passenger compartment, at least on open cars, possibly temporarily blinding the driver. Thus, the device you describe could create actual hazards.

You must remember, too, that a state may apply its own laws to auxiliary lighting devices and require specific approval to use them. Virtually all states reserve the color blue for emergency signals. Standard No. 108 does not permit side marker lamps and reflectors to be red except when they are mounted as far to the rear as practicable, and we apply this requirement to auxiliary side lighting devices as well.

If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/19/00

ID: 20944.drn

Monsieur Jean-Yves Le Bouthillier
Standards Manager
Les Entreprises Michel Corbeil Inc.
304, 12^th Avenue
Laurentides, Quebec J JOR 1C0
CANADA

Dear Monsieur Le Bouthillier:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of whether, in describing tests for school bus emergency exit doors, Standard No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, specifies use of a parallelepiped 45 inches high, 22 inches wide and 6 inches deep for school buses that are 10,000 pounds or less gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and for school buses that are 12,000 pounds GVWR. As explained below, a parallelepiped of that size is specified for testing the first type of school buses and not the second type.

Standard No. 217 specifies at S5.4.2.2, School buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, that a school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less "shall conform to all provisions of S5.4.2, except that the parallelepiped dimension for the opening of the rear emergency door or doors shall be 45 inches high, 22 inches wide, and six inches deep." Thus, a school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less must have a rear emergency door or doors permitting unobstructed passage of a parallelepiped that is 45 inches by 22 inches by 6 inches.

Since it is "more than 10,000 pounds," a school bus with a GVWR of 12,000 pounds would be subject to S5.4.2.1 School buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds:

(a) ... each emergency exit door of a school bus shall ... be manually extendable by a single person to a position that permits:

(1) In the case of a rear emergency exit door, an opening large enough to permit unobstructed passage of a rectangular parallelepiped 114 centimeters high, 61 centimeters wide, and 30 centimeters deep.

In English measurements, the parallelepiped specified in S5.4.2.1(a)(1) is approximately 45 inches high by 24 inches wide by 12 inches deep. Thus, the parallelepiped specified for use in testing school buses of 12,000 pounds GVWR is wider and deeper than that specified for use in testing school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:217
d.3/15/2000