Interpretation ID: aiam1932
Staff Engineer
Blue Bird Body Company
P.O. Box 937
Fort Valley
GA 31030;
Dear Mr. Milby: This is in response to your letter of May 19, 1975, inquiring as to th effect of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*, on a Connecticut law relating to school bus window emergency release.; As you are aware, section 103 (d) of the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that no State or political subdivision of a State may promulgate or continue in effect standards applicable to an aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance which is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless the standards are identical.; Standard No. 217 includes provisions relating to emergency exit forc applications. A differing State specification for emergency release force applications is voided by S103(d) since the Federal standard is intended to cover all aspects of emergency window release performance.; As explained in our November 29, 1974, letter to Mr. Donald L. Gibso (copy enclosed) a Federal standard will preempt any State law that relates to the same aspect of motor vehicle performance yet imposes different requirements. Your responsibility as a manufacturer is to comply with the Federal safety standard. You should note, however, that purchase specifications may be imposed by any person or organization, including a State or municipality, with respect to vehicles purchased for the person or organization's own use. Such specifications are not limited by Federal law, and in the case of governmental bodies are specifically allowed by S103(d), although of course they cannot alter a manufacturer's duty to conform to Federal standards.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel