Search Interpretations

Interpretation ID: 22691.drn



    Mr. Robert L. Cumpstone
    Manager of Motor Transport Services
    Bureau of Public Transportation
    State of Connecticut
    Department of Transportation
    2800 Berlin Turnpike, P.O. Box 317546
    Newington, CT 06131-7546



    Dear Mr. Cumpstone:


    This responds to your letter asking whether a Connecticut requirement for four emergency exits per side for a bus operating in that State is preempted by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. As explained below, the answer is yes. Connecticut may not refuse to register buses that comply with FMVSS No. 217 on the basis of the State's push out window requirement.

    You wrote to us after a private business tried to register a new 56-passenger touring bus in your State. Apparently, the bus did not pass a State inspection. In your letter, you stated that the bus did not pass inspection because the

        ... motor bus type vehicle manufacturer has changed the configuration of its vehicles, which eliminates the number of push out windows to less than the number required by the end user for a vehicle to be placed in motor bus service under our user requirements.

    Specifically, you provided a copy of the Connecticut "user standard that applies to our regulated motor bus operators," which states in part:

        All buses equipped with push-out windows and no emergency door ... and seating over thirty-seven adult passengers shall have at least four such windows on each side.

    As you note, this "user standard" is not identical to the emergency exit requirements for buses established by FMVSS No. 217. The issue therefore is whether the State safety standard for four windows on each side of a new bus (seating more than 37 passengers) is consistent with Federal law. Under 49 U.S.C. Section 30103(b), Preemption:

        (1) When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter [49 U.S.C. Sections 30101 et seq.], 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 ....

    There is a "motor vehicle safety standard in effect under this chapter" that is "applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle" as the State law, namely FMVSS No. 217. That standard establishes requirements applicable to the same aspect of safety performance; i.e., bus emergency exits.

    Unlike the State requirement, FMVSS No. 217 does not specify a number of emergency window exits. Paragraph S5.2.2.1 of the standard specifies that non-school buses shall provide unobstructed openings for emergency exits which collectively amount, in total square centimeters, to at least 432 times the number of designated seating positions on the bus. At least 40 percent of the total required area of unobstructed openings, computed in the above manner, shall be provided on each side of a bus. In determining the total unobstructed openings provided by a bus, no emergency exit, regardless of its area, shall be credited with more than 3,458 square centimeters of the total area requirement.

    NHTSA safety standards apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. (49 U.S.C. 30112.) Thus, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), Connecticut could not establish a bus exit requirement not identical to that in FMVSS No. 217 that would apply to the manufacture or sale of new buses in Connecticut.

    However, NHTSA does not regulate the operation (i.e., use) of motor vehicles, which is generally under the jurisdiction of the States. Connecticut is not required to impose operational requirements that are "identical" to the FMVSS. Nonetheless, there are limits on State operation requirements, in that general principles of preemption law apply. These principles preclude States from adopting operational requirements that are more stringent than the requirements applicable to new vehicles under the FMVSS, because more stringent State requirements would have the effect of precluding the use of a Federally compliant vehicle in that State. (1) Thus, Connecticut may not refuse to register or allow the operation of buses that comply with FMVSS No. 217 on the basis of the state's more stringent push out window requirement.

    This conclusion is not inconsistent with the statements made in my November 18, 1996 letter to Ms. Betsy Dittemore of the Iowa Department of Public Safety. That letter addressed an Iowa operating restriction, with respect to the light transmittance of vehicle windows, that was less stringent than the Federal requirement. Unlike the letter to Dittemore, the Connecticut user

    standard is more stringent than the FMVSS. The more stringent Connecticut user standard conflicts with and frustrates the scheme of Federal law because it prevents the use of vehicles that comply with the FMVSS.

    I apologize for the delay in responding to your letter. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

    Sincerely,

    John Womack
    Acting Chief Counsel

    ref:217
    d.11/01/01



    1

    However, these principles do not apply to a vehicle (such as a school bus) procured by a State or local governmental jurisdiction for its own use.