Interpretation ID: nht75-2.42

DATE: 09/17/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: L. A. Fink, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 3, 1975, concerning Federal preemption of State motor vehicle safety standards. You ask for confirmation that there is no Federal requirement for turn signal lamps or a dual beam headlamp on a motor-driven cycle whose maximum speed does not exceed 30 mph, and that a State is preempted from requiring such items of equipment on these vehicles.

As you noted, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) provides that where a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a State may not establish or maintain in effect a different standard that covers the same aspect of performance as the Federal standard. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108), establishes the Federal requirements for motorcycle lighting. All motorcycles manufactured between January 1, 1973, and October 14, 1974, were required to be equipped with turn signal lamps. However, effective October 14, 1974, a motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less whose top speed does not exceed 30 mph need not be manufactured with turn signal lamps as required lighting equipment (S4.1.1.26 of Standard No. 108). 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 1 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. It also means that, if a motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less whose speed does not exceed 30 mph is not equipped with turn signal lamps, a State may not require them.

I hope you will find this of assistance to your clients, Steyr-Daimler-Puch, A. G., and Bombardier, Ltd.

SINCERELY,

FRIEDMAN, MEDALIE, OCHS AND JACKS

August 22, 1975

Robert S. Raymond, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division Attorney General's Office Augusta, Maine

Re: Federal Preemption In accordance with our telephone discussion of today, I am enclosing herewith copies of the following:

(1) NHTSA Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108;

(2) SAE J584 -- referred to in Table 3 of MVSS108; and

(3) 15 U.S.C. 1392(d).

As I explained to you we represent Steyr-Daimler-Puch, A.G., and Bombardier Ltd., joint venturers for the manufacture and distribution of motorized bicycles in the United States. We also represent their distributor for Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, Timberland Machines, Lancaster, New Hampshire. I appreciate your assistance in trying to clear up the federal state preemption problem.

The particular problem here involves the possible conflict between the federal standard and the State of Maine regulation concerning headlamps. The federal standard requires only a single beam headlamp whereas the State of Maine regulation apparently requires a double beam.

As I mentioned, the NHTSA in October 1974 prescribed motor vehicle equipment safety standards for a category of vehicles defined as motor driven cycles with a maximum speed of 30mph. The Bombardier/Puch motorized bicycle is in this category and fully complies with all NHTSA safety standards.

The enclosed FVSS108 Table 3 prescribes the required federal standards for headlamps and refers to SAE J584. SAE J584 in turn provides that a single beam headlamp is acceptable; a dual beam headlamp is not required.

A look at 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) makes clear that in the area of motor vehicle safety equipment, this federal standard preempts any state standard dealing with the same aspect of performance. (See the first sentence of 15 U.S.C. 1392(d).) As you will see the state standard must be identical with the federal standard; it cannot be higher or lower.

In view of this I would appreciate your clarifying with the appropriate Maine officials, including the motor vehicle registration and inspection authorities, that the Bombardier/Puch motorized bicycle and any others in the same category qualify for registration and inspection with the single beam headlamp.

I hope this discussion and the enclosed information are sufficient for your purposes. Kindly contact me if you have further questions or need further information.

I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation of the State Police inspection authorities, Sgt. Merservy (spelling uncertain), and your office in resolving this problem. I look forward to your early response.

Leonard A. Fink

FRIEDMAN, MEDALIE, OCHS AND JACKS

September 3, 1975

Frank Berndt, Esq. Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Federal Preemption of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

I am writing on behalf of our clients, Steyr-Daimler-Puch, A. G., and Bombardier, Ltd., joint ventures for the manufacture and distribution of motorized bicycles (mopeds) in the U.S., to request your assistance in clarifying the subject of federal preemption. The issue has arisen in several states, including Maine, Massachusetts and Delaware, where our clients have encountered refusal by motor vehicle authorities to register or inspect the Bombardier/Puch motorized bicycle because it lacks either turn signals or dual beam headlights called for by the respective state regulations.

The Bombardier/Puch motorized bicycle, however, does fully comply with all NHTSA safety standards required for motor driven cycles with a maximum speed of 30mph. MVSS108, revised effective October of 1974, specifically eliminates the need for turn signals on this type of vehicle. Furthermore, with regard to headlamp requirements, MVSS108 Table 3 refers to SAE J584 which in turn provides that a single beam headlight is acceptable.

We have furnished the state authorities with copies of the NHTSA standards and also pointed out the provisions of 15 U.S.C. 1392(d). The first sentence of 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) makes clear that the federal standards preempt any state standards dealing with the same aspect of performance and that states shall have no authority to continue in effect any different standards -- either higher or lower. While the respective legal authorities in the various states have been cooperative, I believe the matter could be more quickly and easily disposed of if you would send us a letter confirming that in fact MVSS108 does not require turn signals or dual beam headlights and that these, as well as all other federal motor vehicle safety standards, preempt any different state standards dealing with the same aspects of performance.

My thanks for your cooperation. Please let me know if you have any questions or require further information.

Leonard A. Fink

CC: TAYLOR VINSON