Interpretation ID: nht81-1.10
DATE: 02/05/81
FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA
TO: Richard A. Rechlicz
TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION
TEXT: This responds to your December 18, 1980, letter asking several 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 question 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 the 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 exists. 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 forward-most 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 statute 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 which 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,
RICHARD A. RECHLICZ
ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR
December 18, 1980
United States Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Attn: Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
RE: Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release File No. 80-82
Dear Mr. Berndt:
Please be advised that the undersigned has been retained by and represents a corporation engaged in the manufacture of school buses throughout the United States, for the purpose of investigation certain issues that relate to standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release and the Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter MVD 17 entitled Transporation of School Children.
For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the Wisconsin Administrative Code MVD 17.
The purpose of this correspondence is to request a written legal opinion from your offices on the issues raised in this correspondence as they relate to standard 217 and MVD 17.
First, as I understand the legislative history of standard 217, S5.2.3.1 was first issued with only subsection (a). Later, as a response to and after opposition was voiced by certain west coast bus manufacturers using the "California window" due to rear mounted engines, NHTSA promulgated subsection (b). Thus, the present standard allows the manufacturer to choose either subsection (a) or subsection (b). Is it correct that subsection (a) established the minimum degree of safety and that subsection (b) either meets or exceeds that minimum standard?
Second, please advise as to the NHTSA position on the supremacy clause, 15USC section 1392(b). It was my belief that with respect to the directive of Congress to the NHTSA to address itself to the safety standards itemized in 15 USC 1395(i), where the NHTSA issued a safety standard thereon, the State could not adopt "any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of said vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard." (State owned and used vehicles excepted).
Third, and I believe this relates to question 2, as I read Standard 217, especifically 217 S5.2.1, it is my impression that all buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more "shall meet the unobstructed openings requirements by providing side exits and at least one rear exit that conforms to S5.3 through S5.5". Has the federal government pre-empted the field as to what is unobstructed for the openings? For this example, please refer to the spec drawing enclosed: if the manufacturer meets the requirements of S5.4.2.1(b), can the State initiate a rule that the seating arrangement as shown in the drawing for the side door obstructs the opening? (Assume also that the seating arrangement meets federal specifications as to distance.)
Fourth, it is my belief that nowhere in the Wisconsin Administrative Code MVD 17, is there a requirement that buses must have aisles. From your reading of that chapter alone, and I suggest that the word aisle is used only in MVD 17.13(1) and 17.25(2)(b), do you find anywhere that MVD 17 either
(1) defines aisle? or
(2) requires aisles in school buses?
Again, I request the opinion on this aspect only from your reading of the provision, not from other outside factors.
Finally, MVD 17.06(3) defines "emergency door zone" as "the area inside the vehicle required by FMVSS 217 to be unobstructed at the emergency exit. . ." From a reading of this definition alone, could you please advise as to whether there are any emergency door zones on a bus that is manufactured with exists meeting FMVSS 217 S5.2.3.1(b) ("California window" and side door exit).
I understand that responses to all of these issues raised in this correspondence will require a considerable amount of time by your offices. Please realize that it is important that we have a response from your offices on each question.
Accordingly, if there is any question that is not clear to you as stated, please call.
Furthermore, I would request that you acknowledge receipt of this correspondence.
Your prompt and immediate attention to this correspondence is appreciated as we are currently experiencing certain time restraints.
I thank you in advance for your consideration and courtesies. Seasons greetings to you and your family.
ENC.
cc: THOMAS BUILT BUS, INC. ATTN: BRYCE HUNT; RODDY LIGON, JR.; WILLIAM G. LADEWIG, ATTY AT LAW;
NOTE:
THE SEAT JUST FORWARD OF THE SIDE EMERGENCY DOOR CAN NOT EXTEND BEYOND LEADING VERTICAL EDGE OF DOOR OPENING.
APPLIES TO:
"S" MODELS WITH SIDE EMERGENCY DOOR AND WITHOUT REAR EMERGENCY DOOR.
ALL GAUGES TO CONFORM TO AMERICAN IRON A STEEL INSTITUTE (AISI) SPECIFICATIONS
THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INC. HIGH POINT, N.C.
TITLE
SEAT LOCATION - SIDE EMERGENCY DOOR FMVSS #217
(Graphics omitted)