Interpretation ID: aiam3390
N88 W16414 Main Street
Menomonee Falls
WI 53051;
Dear Mr. Rechlicz: This responds to your December 18, 1980, letter asking severa questions about the application of Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*, to school buses.; First, you refer to paragraphs (a) and (b) of S5.2.3.1 and questio which paragraph establishes the minimum safety level. Since paragraph (a) was first proposed and subsequently modified by the addition of paragraph (b), you believe that paragraph (a) defines the minimum level of safety while paragraph (b) meets or exceeds that level of safety. This reading of the standard is not completely accurate. Paragraph (a) of that section was the first part of the section to be proposed. Before the rule became effective, however, the proposal was amended to include paragraph (b). Accordingly, both paragraphs must be read together as defining the minimum mandatory safety performance requirement.; Second, you ask for our opinion of the preemption clause in th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)). You state that your interpretation is that no State or local government may adopt a safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance as a Federal standard unless it is identical to the Federal standard. An exception exists for standards applicable to vehicles purchased for the State's or the local government's own use. This is an accurate reading of the preemption clause, however, a major area of contention frequently arises around what constitutes the same aspect of performance as a Federal standard.; Third, you ask whether the Federal government, through Standard No 217, has preempted States from regulating unobstructed openings for purposes of emergency exits. As you are aware, the standard states that the emergency exit opening must be of a certain size. Further, the standard specifies the location of one of the seats at the forwardmost side of the emergency exit. These are the agency's only requirements relating to the unobstructed emergency exit opening. With respect to whether a State could regulate further in this area, it would depend upon the type of regulation the State adopted. For example, a regulation that governed the size of the opening or the location of the forwardmost seat would probably be preempted. However, a regulation that required an aisle leading to the side emergency door would not likely be preempted, since the Federal government does not regulate aisles in buses.; Your fourth question asks us to comment on whether a Wisconsin statut requires aisles in school buses. The agency does not issue interpretations of State statutes. You should contact appropriate State officials for this information.; Finally, you recite a Wisconsin definition of emergency door zone whic states that it is 'the area inside the vehicle required by FMVSS 217 to be unobstructed at the emergency exit...' You then ask whether there are any such zones on buses constructed with side emergency exits. The agency, as stated above, requires an unobstructed opening at each exit (S5.2.3.1). If Wisconsin defines this as a zone, then such a zone exists in buses for purposes of the Wisconsin statute.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel