Interpretation ID: lynch.df
B. Daniel Lynch, Esq.
B. Daniel Lynch Law Offices
CalFed Building, Suite 709
301 E. Colorado Boulevard
Pasadena, California 91101-1911
Dear Mr. Lynch:
This responds to your letter and telephone calls asking whether 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. would preempt legislation that you would like to have introduced in the California Assembly. I apologize for the delay in responding. Based on our understanding of your letter, we believe that the answer is a qualified no.
You explain that the California law you wish to see introduced would require a mirror on the passenger side of the hood of conventional "big rig" trucks (i.e., trucks with hoods that extend forward from the driver, as opposed to flat-faced "cab-over" trucks"). The law would be to correct a "blind spot" on the passenger side of the hood. Your inquiry arose out of a desire to prevent the kind of crash that a former client of yours had experienced. That person's car was in the right lane of a highway and was struck when a big rig truck moved into that lane without seeing the car. The truck was equipped with side-mounted rearview mirrors, but the passenger side mirror did not provide a view of the area to the right side of the hood, forward of the mirror. You would like California to enact a law to require big rig trucks to have a passenger-side mirror that would enable the driver to see small cars and other vehicles that could be obscured by the truck's large hood.
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview mirrors (49 CFR 571.111), requires side rear view mirrors on trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,563 kilograms (kg) or more. The standard at S7.1 (for trucks with GVWRs of between 4,536 kg and 11,340 kg) and at S8.1 (for trucks with GVWRs of 11,340 kg or more) requires mirrors on both sides of the vehicle. The mirrors must be "located so as to provide the driver a view to the rear along both sides of the vehicle and shall be adjustable both in the horizontal and vertical directions to view the rearward scene." The use of the words "a view to the rear" and "rearward scene" indicates that the specified field of view does not extend forward of some point. That point, logically, is the driver. Our review of the rulemaking history of the standard indicates that there is no Federal intent to regulate the view of the driver and passenger side of a truck forward of the driver. California would thus be regulating a different aspect of performance (i.e., a different field of view) than that regulated by Standard No. 111.
Section 30103(b) of our statute, 49 U.S.C. 30103(b) (formerly 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act), states in part:
when a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, 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.
If the State regulation would address only the area forward of the driver, it would not be preempted by 30103(b). (1) However, it is difficult to respond categorically that the State regulation would not be preempted because you have provided little information on what the State would require. The State regulation could still be preempted if it conflicts with Federal law, either by creating a situation in which manufacturers cannot comply with both the State and Federal laws, or by interfering in some way with another Federal motor vehicle safety standard (such as the field-of-view requirements for the lighting standard, 49 CFR 571.108).
The Department's Office of Motor Carrier Safety has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the U.S. You should contact that office at (202) 366-4012, for information about that agency's requirements.
In closing, we want to make clear that we are not providing any views with respect to the merits of the State mirror requirement which you briefly described and which you would like to see enacted in California. This letter only addresses the preemption issue you raised.
If you have any further questions, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref: 111#VSA
d.12/6/99
1. If NHTSA were to issue a standard in this area, inconsistent State laws of general applicability would be preempted to the extent that they are not identical with the Federal standard. Of course, we would consider any relevant State laws when adopting a Federal standard.