Skip to main content
Search Interpretations

Interpretation ID: nht94-3.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 9, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Erika Z. Jones -- Esq., Mayer, Brown & Platt

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 12/16/93 From Erika Jones To John Womack (OCC-9459)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

This responds to your letter asking for our concurrence that @ 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act preempts a "California flammability standard" as that standard applies to child restraint systems. The standard you enclosed is Ca lifornia Business and Professions Code, Division 8, Chapter 3, @ 19006 and @ 19161. I apologize for the delay in this response.

Because it was not readily apparent from your letter that the California flammability standard applies to child restraint systems, Ms. Fujita of my staff contacted California state officials for more information about the standard. We were informed by Mr . Art Anderson, Chief of the California Highway Safety Office, that California does not have a flammability standard for child restraint systems. Mr. Anderson was aware that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302 applies to child restrain ts by way of S5.7 of FMVSS No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems."

As you point out, Federal preemption issues would arise if California had a flammability standard for child restraint systems that covered the same aspect of performance as FMVSSs 213 and 302. However, in view of Mr. Anderson's statement that California has no flammability standard for child restraint systems, we need not address those issues today.

We hope that this explanation is helpful. Mr. Anderson of the California Highway Safety Office (telephone (916) 445-0527) said he will be happy to answer any questions you might have about California's requirements. If you any further questions about @ 103(d), please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,