|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MARVIN MANDEL, Governor 1155
FOR ITS INTENDED APPLICATION, COMPLIES WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION.
(2) THE CERTIFICATION SHALL BE ON THE FORM
THAT THE ADMINISTRATION REQUIRES.
REVISOR'S NOTE: This section presently appears as
Art. 66 1/2, §12-704.
Subsection (a) of this section has been
revised to conform to the similar language
appearing in §22—609 of this subtitle. The
present phrase "and determined by the test
procedures ... established under this
subtitle" is deleted as unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GENERAL REVISOR'S NOTE:
In revising this title, the Commission to Revise the
Annotated Code encountered particularly difficult
problems in its review of present Art. 66 1/2, Subtitle
12, Parts I through IV—now Subtitles 1 through 4 of this
title.
The majority of the provisions contained in these
subtitles are subject to preemption by federal law.
Title 15, §1392(d) of the United States Code specifically
provides for the supremacy of federal standards and the
preemption of local standards that are not "identical" to
the federal standards. Since the federal standards
generally apply only to manufacturers, only for various
specified types of vehicles, and only as of their various
effective dates, it is a highly complex task to determine
at any given time which State provisions have been
rendered, in whole or in part, obsolete.
The process is complicated further by this State's
commitment to the Vehicle Equipment Safety Compact —
Subtitle 5 of this title — the implementation of which
from time to time will further subject the provisions of
Subtitles 1 through 4 to obsolescence.
Additional difficulties exist with the unusually
detailed — and, mostly as a result of maintaining
uniformity with the poorly drafted Uniform Vehicle Code,
often unreadable — provisions of these subtitles. They
contain several substantive ambiguities and other
problems, the resolution of many of which requires the
expertise of those who are intimately familiar with the
highly technical aspects of the equipment provisions.
Some of the provisions even appear to be redundant of and
— because of differences in wording and approach —
somewhat inconsistent with provisions appearing elsewhere
in the Maryland Vehicle Law. (Compare, e.g., §§22—402
and 22-402.1 of this title with §§22-609 and 22-610 of
this title; and §22-404 (a) of this title with §21-1104(d)
of this article.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
