Interpretation ID: nht75-2.41
DATE: 12/17/75
FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA
TO: State of Maine
COPYEE: LEONARD FINK
TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION
TEXT: We have received copies of correspondence between you and Leonard A. Fink, Washington counsel for Bombardier/Puch motorized bicycles, concerning requirements of the State of Maine for motor driven cycle headlamps. I understand that Mr. Fink has provided you with a copy of my letter of September 17, 1975 to him. Mr. Fink has asked that I write you directly concerning our views on Federal preemption of State motor vehicle safety standards.
At issue is whether the State of Maine may continue to require motorcycles of 5 horsepower or less to be equipped with multiple beam headlamps. In my letter to Mr. Fink I stated:
"Any motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less manufactured on or after January 1, 1969, may be equipped with either a single or multiple beam headlamp (Table III, Standard No. 108, incorporating by reference SAE Standard J584, Motorcycle and Motor Driven Cycle Headlamps, April 1964. See Table I of J584. This means, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) that a State is preempted from requiring a motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less to be equipped with a multiple beam headlamp if its manufacturer has equipped it with a single beam one".
You replied to Mr. Fink on November 7, 1975 that
"Table I appears to be inconclusive . . . . The most reasonable interpretation . . . is that motor driven cycles at high beam frequently utilize both the upper beam of the multiple beam light and a additional single beam light, whereas motor driven cycles at low beam may use the lower beam of the multiple lights (Table II of J584). At any rate, I have not found any clear preemptive language such as we find with regard to turn signal lamps in Standard No. 108 @ 4.1.1.26."
There are actually four different permissible lighting configurations available for motor driven cycles. The "multiple beam light and an additional single beam light" to which you refer is one of them, specifically the "one 5 3/4 inch Type 1 and one 5 3/4 inch Type 2 sealed beam units" referred to in SAE J584's General Requirement. But the photometrics of Table I do not refer to this configuration, whose photometrics are those of J579. As a practical matter motor driven cycles will rarely if ever be equipped with more than one headlamp because of the severe drain on their low power reserve. In recognition of the limited generating capability of motor cycles with 5 horsepower or less, J584 does allow use of a single beam headlamp as the sole forward lighting source. The texts of the sections on Beam Aim During Photometric Test and At-Focus Tests refer specifically to test methods for single beam headlamps, and while the standard could be even more specific, its requirements appear to be generally understood by manufacturers and law enforcement officials. It is not a prerequisite for preemption that there be language in the body of Standard No.
108 specifying allowable headlamp systems for motor driven cycles. Where, as here, the area of motor driven cycle headlighting is clearly covered by Standard No. 108, a State must allow all four headlighting systems and cannot require only one of them.
If Maine officials would like the NHTSA to consider changing these existing Federal requirements for motor-driven cycles, they should submit a petition for rulemaking pursuant to 49 CFR Part 552 for an amendment to Standard No. 108.
If you have any further questions I would be pleased to answer them.
SINCERELY,
FRIEDMAN, MEDALIE AND OCHS
November 17, 1975
Frank Berndt, Esq. Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.
Re: Federal Preemption of State of Maine Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
As suggested by Mr. Taylor Vinson in our telephone conversation of November 17, I am enclosing copies of the following correspondence re the above:
1. My letters dated August 22, 1975 and September 22, 1975 to Robert S. Raymond, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Maine.
2. Your letter dated September 17, 1975 to me, a copy of which was enclosed with my September 22, 1975 letter to Mr. Raymond.
3. Mr. Raymond's reply letter to me dated November 7, 1975.
One would have thought that your September 17 letter clearly resolved any doubts as to whether the State of Maine could require motor driven cycles of 5hp or less to be equipped with a multiple beam headlight. Alas, Mr. Raymond still seems unpersuaded. Mr. Vinson thus suggested that NHTSA deal directly with Mr. Raymond. I would appreciate your doing so and sending us copies of the relevant correspondence.
For your information, on November 17 I contacted Mr. Walter Ross, Chairman, Motorcycle Headlight Task Force, SAE, 216-266-2272. Mr. Ross confirmed that SAE J584 permitted either single or multiple beam headlight in this case. According to Mr. Ross, SAE will provide any further statement of clarification in support.
On behalf of our clients, Steyr-Daimier-Puch, A.G., and Bombardier, Ltd., and others in the same position, our thanks for your efforts to resolve this situation.
Leonard A. Fink
cc: TAYLOR VINSON (W/ENCS.)
STATE OF MAINE DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL November 7, 1975
Leonard A. Fink, Esquire Friedman, Medalie, Ochs and Jacks
Re: Federal preemption - motor driven cycle headlights
Please excuse my tardiness in researching the questions you presented to me pertaining to the above matter.
It is my feeling at this point that federal rules and regulations in the motor vehicle safety area do indeed generally preempt state regulations. I say this, however, with the qualification that federal courts narrowly construe the preemptive provisions to give states as much flexibility as possible within the federal regulatory framework.
With that introduction in mind, it is my present feeling that there is no federal requirement which prohibits a state from requiring a high and low beam headlight on a motor driven cycle with 5 horsepower or less whose speed does not exceed 30 m.p.h. I say this after having carefully studied Table III of Federal Standard No. 108 which incorporates by reference SAE Standard J584. Both you and Mr. Frank Berndat have placed great significance on Table I of SAE J584. At best, however, Table I appears to be inconclusive as to the issue we are concerned with. The most reasonable interpretation of Table I of J584 is that motor driven cycles at high beam frequently utilize both the upper beam of the multiple beam light and an additional single beam light, whereas motor driven cycles at low beam only use the lower beam of the multiple lights (Table II of J584). At any rate, you have not indicated to me and I have not found any clear preemptive language such as we find with regard to turn signal lamps in Standard No. 108 @ 4.1.1.26.
In conclusion, I feel it would be improper for me at this time to recommend a change in Maine's regulations pertaining to head lamps on motor driven cycles. I will be glad to correspond with you further regarding this matter.
ROBERT S. RAYMOND Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division
cc: CAPT. RICHARD JONES -- DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
FRIEDMAN, MEDALIE, OCHS AND JACKS
September 22, 1975
Robert S. Raymond, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division Attorney General's Office
AUGUSTA, MAINE 04330
Re: Federal Preemption
Following up my letter of you of August 22 and our several telephone conversations, I am enclosing for your information a copy of an opinion letter dated September 17, 1975 from Frank Berndt, Esq., Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
As you will see, Mr. Berndt's letter makes clear that Federal Safety Standard No. 108 permits a motor driven cycle of 5 bp or less to be equipped with either a single or multiple beam headlight. Furthermore, Mr. Brandt's letter states "This means, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1392 (d), that a State is preempted from requiring a motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less to be equipped with a multiple beam headlamp if its manufacturer has equipped it with a single beam one."
I would hope that under these circumstances you can promptly advise the appropriate State of Maine officials that the Bombardier/Puch motorized bicycle, and any others in the same category, quality for registration and inspection with the single beam headlight. As you can well understand continued delay in resolving this matter is working a hardship on purchasers, dealers and distributors of the motorized bicycle.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Leonard A. Fink