Interpretation ID: nht91-4.17

DATE: June 10, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Rosemary Dunlap -- President, Motor Voters

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-10-91 from Rosemary Dunlap to Jack Rice (OCC 6035)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning bills under consideration by a number of states which would require disclosure concerning safety features in light trucks and vans and bumper strength. You stated that there is considerable debate about whether such bills would be preempted be Federal law, and noted that opponents have represented that a NHTSA spokesperson indicated that the states are preempted in this area. You stated that you have been unable to locate this statement, and asked whether NHTSA has an official opinion regarding Federal preemption and disclosure.

I believe that the statement you refer to was made by NHTSA's Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, Barry Felrice, at the July 1990 NHTSA Public/Industry Meeting. Mr. Felrice was responding to a question from the Center for Auto Safety. I have enclosed a copy of the relevant portion of the transcript for that meeting and the question.

As you can see from the transcript, Mr. Felrice did not say that states are necessarily preempted from establishing information disclosure requirements. In order to provide an opinion as whether a particular bill would be preempted, I would need to review the specific language of the bill.

I hope this information is helpful.

Attachment NHTSA MEMORANDUM

Subject: INFORMATION: Submittal to Docket Date: August 13, 1990 NHTSA/Industry

From: Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

To: Docket Section THRU: Jack Rice Chief Counsel

Please insert in that Section of the Docket titled, "Rulemaking, Research and Enforcement Program: Public Meetings, the following:

1. Federal Register Notice 55 FR 25920 of June 25, 1990 - Notice of Meeting July 18, 1990, Ann Arbor, MI.

2. Agenda of Meeting

3. Submittal from Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc, subject: "NHTSA/Industry Meeting - Agenda Items, July 18, 1990."

4. Letter dated July 10, 1990, from Center for Auto Safety, subject: "Questions for the July 18, 1990, NHTSA/Industry Meeting."

5. Letter dated July 9, 1990, from Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, subject: "Questions for NHTSA/Meeting, July 18, 1990.

6. Transcript of Proceedings for the NHTSA Industry Meeting on July 18, 1990.

Attachments

Agenda for NHTSA Industry Meeting Wednesday, July 18, 1990 Ann Arbor, Michigan

I. RULEMAKING

Q. MVMA

1. Attached is a list of unresolved petitions. Please advise as to their status and anticipated actions.

CRASHAVOIDANCE

Q. AIAM

1A. What is the status of NHTSA action on the petition that would require brake hydraulic system malfunction indication for fluid loss and/or pressure loss?

Q. MVMA

2. After review of petitions for reconsideration, does the agency expect to retain the current method of measuring turn signal/headlamp separation by amending the recent FMVSS 108 Final Rule (effective November, 1990)?

3. When does the agency plan to issue a Final Rule on Docket No.

89-24; Notice 1 (optional combinations of lamps)? What changes are expected from the NPRM?

4. When does the agency plan to issue a Final Rule on Docket No.

81-11; Notice 29 (amended humidity test procedure)? What changes are expected from the NPRM?

5. When will the next rulemaking action be taken and what will be the content regarding the adoption of roadway illumination specifications for forward lighting? (Docket 85-15, Notice 7)

Q. AIAM

6. NHTSA issued a final rule to require vehicles with automatic transmissions to be equipped with key-locking systems from September 1, 1992. Has the agency received any request for reconsideration of the requirements and does the agency have an intention to amend the regulation?

Q. MVMA

7. When does the agency plan to issue a SNPRM on brake harmonization? Please describe any expected changes from the previous notice.

Q. AIAM

51. Automobile manufacturers are well aware of the benefits of ABS systems and many are moving forward to adopt ABS for their model lineups. However, in the State of California, a bill, AB 4342 is currently being deliberated, which would make ABS mandatory for all vehicles 6,001 lbs unloaded vehicle weight. While the intent of the bill is a step for the better, we do believe that the bill may conflict with Section 103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act.

Could NHTSA comment on whether this bill does come into conflict with Federal preemption of state laws as stated in Section 103(d)?

Q. MVMA

52. When is NHTSA planning to complete and make available the "EMERGENCY RESCUE GUIDELINES FOR AIR BAG-EQUIPPED VEHICLES"?

-How and when can copies be obtained?

-How will the "GUIDELINES" be announced and distributed, and to what organizations and mailing lists?

-To whom should individual requests be directed?

Q. CFAS

53. Because light trucks and vans (LTV's) need not meet the same safety standards as passenger cars, several states have proposed laws to require disclosure of standards that a particular LTV does or does not meet, and any effect on the owner's insurance rates. What is NHTSA's view on such state laws?

54. To what extent does NHTSA plan to continue soliciting the opinions of consumer groups in roundtable meetings, such as the recent one on rear seat shoulder belt installation?

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

In the Matter of:

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION INDUSTRY MEETING

PAGES: 1 through 79 PLACE: Ann Arbor, Michigan DATE: July 18, 1990

HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION Official Reporters 1220 L. Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20805 (202) 623-4233

...regulate. So while we don't specifically require or address anti-lock in our standards, we think that a state law requiring anti-lock can be regarded as addressing the same aspect of performance as Standard 105 and therefore, would be preempted by our standard.

MR. SCHWENTKER: Don Schwentker from AIAM. One might argue that breaking is an aspect of performance quite apart from anti-lock breaking and that a breaking standard, itself, might be preempted like that.

MR. FELRICE: Could be. But we're willing right now to go even further than that. Like I said, breaking stability is regulated by Standard 105. So, without looking at the actual bill, you know, the lawyers think that such a law would be preempted by us.

MR. SCHWENTKER: Does NHTSA have any plans to communicate their feelings on that to California?

MR. FELRICE: No, not at this time. It would be premature.

Fifty two we talked about. Fifty three is another legal question. In this case, the states are requiring disclosure of information to consumers, in this case, light trucks and vans -- a label or something that says these vehicles do not meet all the same requirements that passenger cars do. I think we've seen similar laws here on the bumper performance.

This is a different case. Here we -- there is nothing in federal law that preempts or otherwise prohibits a state from establishing information disclosure requirements as long as the information is accurate and is not required to be affixed to the vehicle. And we think

there is federal preemption there but if a state wants to provide dealerships, provide point of sale information to consumers, or that there be information in an owner's manual, we believe that they have authority to do that.

And the second part of this question asks, what are our views on such state laws? We would hate to give any kind of opinion as to whether a particular state law was good or bad or if we agreed with it based on the specifics of that particular law and I really don't want to give a general statement that we disapprove of the states being in this area.

MR. DANA: Greg Dana, AIAM. About petitions -- did you just say as long as that information labeling requirement, whatever, is not attached to the vehicle?

MR. FELRICE: Yes.

As long as it is not required to be affixed to the vehicle. MR. DANA: All right.

MR. FELRICE: And what the legal cite for that particular aspect is I don't know and you can feel free to ask Jack Rice, our Chief Counsel, who said you can say this, Barry.

Now the last question asks, To what extent we plan to continue soliciting the opinions of consumer groups or others in round table meetings?

For instance, in a recent one, we had an issue about lap/shoulder belts. These will be done periodically. Jerry Curry wants to reach out a lot. We've had meetings with insurers, with manufacturers, consumer groups -- the rear seat lap shoulder belt meeting was an interesting one because we sort of had everybody there together: dealers, manufacturers, consumer groups and insurers. We don't have a particular time table that we'll do these. And probably -- I think everyone wants to do them once every six months, once every year, and I think we will continue to do that and as specific subjects come up, like rear seat lap shoulder belt retrofit kits that merit a specific meeting, we'll just call it then. So they will be continued but there is no specific schedule for doing that.

And I will answer any other questions.

MR. BENNETT: Milford Bennett, General Motors. Barry, a follow up on Item 22, Side Impact. BIOSID AND SID...