Interpretation ID: 2811yy
Senior Counsel
New Jersey State Legislature
Office of Legislative Services
State House Annex
CN-068
Trenton, NJ 08625
Dear Ms. Szilagyi:
Thank you for your letter on behalf of Senator Ronald L. Rice requesting the views of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on whether the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984 (Theft Act)(15 U.S.C. 2021 et seq.) would preempt provisions of New Jersey Senate Bill (SB) 3434. I apologize for the delay in this response. It is my understanding that SB 3434 has been reintroduced in this session of the legislature as SB 876. For the reasons described below, it is our opinion that the provisions in the bill for the mandatory antitheft devices on certain car lines would be preempted by the Theft Act.
We understand that SB 876 would prohibit the sale or lease of a passenger automobile that is at or over the "estimated median manufacturer's suggested retail price for all passenger automobiles" unless it is equipped with a "passive anti-theft device" that "automatically activates upon turning off the motor of a vehicle and causes an alarm or ignition cut-off to engage." Violation of this provision would be punishable by a fine.
Although the Theft Act contains an explicit preemption provision (15 U.S.C. 2031) for parts marking systems which would not be triggered by SB 876, the bill would nonetheless create an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the overall Congressional objectives embodied in the Theft Act and would therefore be preempted.
The objective of the Theft Act was to establish a least-cost antitheft system, with a parts-marking system being the system of choice. The Congress specified a $15-per-car limit for the cost of the system (15 U.S.C. 2024(a)), and made it clear that the alternative of installing antitheft devices was to be at the petition of the manufacturer, under procedures designed to ensure the effectiveness of such devices (15 U.S.C. 2025).
SB 876 would not only have the effect of requiring the installation of antitheft devices in vehicles that are marked under the Theft Act, thereby imposing a greater cost on the owners, but could require a vehicle with an antitheft device approved under the Theft Act to be equipped with a second antitheft device if the first device did not operate in the manner prescribed by SB 876. These effects would prevent the accomplishment of the Theft Act's objectives, and would thus satisfy the conditions for general preemption found by the Supreme Court in Hines v.Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941) and followed in subsequent cases (Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co., 485 U.S. 293 (1988); Northwest Central Pipeline Corporation v. State Corporation Commission of Kansas, (109 S. Ct. 1262 (1989)).
I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel
ref: Part 541 d:l/l4/9l