Interpretation ID: nht91-4.25

DATE: June 19, 1991

FROM: Rosemary Dunlap -- President, Motor Voters

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-10-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Rosemary Dunlap (A38; VSA 103(a))

TEXT:

Thank you very much for your letter of June 10 regarding the question of possible federal preemption of state disclosure laws. The information is helpful. I also appreciate your sending a copy of the relevant portion of the transcript from Barry Felrice's Public/Industry meeting.

According to the transcript, Barry stated that NHTSA believes states would have authority to require information disclosure, as long as it was accurate, and IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE AFFIXED TO THE VEHICLE.

Auto industry lobbyists raised the issue of disclosure placement in Virginia, which proposed to require disclosure on a window sticker. However, they did not identify the legal cite for their argument. California's pending disclosure bills have a similar provision. Therefore, this is a pressing issue.

For the legal cite for that aspect--whether the sticker could be required to be affixed to the vehicle--Barry invited people to feel free to ask you.

So--to take Barry up on his invitation--would you please refer me to the legal cite concerning requiring disclosure information affixed to the vehicle?

Again, many thanks for your assistance.

Attachment A

FROM TRANSCRIPT OF NHTSA/INDUSTRY MEETING ON JULY 18, 1990

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 have 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: 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 questions 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...

Attachment B

California Legislature 1991-92 Regular Session Assembly Bill No. 71 (Text omitted)