98-19216. Denial of Petition for Rulemaking; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards  

  • [Federal Register Volume 63, Number 138 (Monday, July 20, 1998)]
    [Proposed Rules]
    [Pages 38802-38803]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 98-19216]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
    
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
    
    49 CFR Part 571
    
    
    Denial of Petition for Rulemaking; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
    Standards
    
    AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
    
    ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: This document denies a petition by Whizzer Motorbike Company 
    for rulemaking which would exclude it and other motorized bicycles from 
    all DOT regulations. Petitioner argued that the vehicle's low speed and 
    small size justified such exclusion. However, the agency found this 
    conclusion unsupported and denies the petition. Motorized bicycles, 
    which may have a maximum speed of up to 25 miles per hour and are found 
    on the public streets, must be afforded the same level of protection 
    that now exists for their category under the Federal motor vehicle 
    safety standards where they are defined as ``motor driven cycles,'' 
    which are ``motorcycles with a motor which produces 5 brake horsepower 
    or less.''
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jere Medlin, Office of Safety 
    Performance Standards, NHTSA (202-366-5276).
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    Introduction
    
        The agency wishes to use this forum to reiterate its long-standing 
    policy on the regulatory treatment of powered bicycles.
        On October 2, 1997, the Whizzer Motorbike Company of Orange, 
    California, petitioned the Administrator of the National Highway 
    Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for ``relief from meeting DOT 
    regulations'' (petitioner's emphasis). The basis of its petition was 
    that its product is ``a motor-assisted bicycle, requiring human power 
    to start from a static position,'' designed to carry one person, has 
    less than 2 horsepower, weighs ``less than 60 lbs. GVWR,'' and ``will 
    not exceed 25 miles per hour.'' In Whizzer's opinion, the vehicle may 
    be used for ``very limited transportation,'' but ``it is not practical 
    for utility purpose other than very short distances.''
        NHTSA advised Whizzer on November 17, 1997, that it viewed the 
    petition as one for rulemaking that would exclude the Whizzer and other 
    vehicles in its class from DOT requirements. One week later, Whizzer 
    assented to this treatment, adding the justification that its product 
    was a nostalgia vehicle and its engine a design of 1930s technology.
    
    Background
    
        Over the years, NHTSA has been asked about the applicability of the 
    Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) to bicycles with small 
    motors attached. In responding to these requests, the agency has begun 
    by deciding whether the vehicle for which an interpretation was sought 
    was, in fact, a motor vehicle subject to NHTSA's jurisdiction. NHTSA's 
    enabling statute, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, defines a motor vehicle in 
    pertinent part as ``a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and 
    manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and 
    highways * * *.'' (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6)). Since a bicycle that does 
    not have any motor is a vehicle driven by muscular power instead of 
    mechanical power, such a bicycle is not a ``motor vehicle'' regulated 
    by NHTSA.
        However, the addition of a motor to a bicycle may create a motor 
    vehicle. Whether the motor in fact does so depends upon the extent to 
    which it propels the bicycle to which it has been attached. Some motors 
    are characterized as providing a ``power assist'' to the bicycle 
    operator. Within this category of motorized bicycle, the agency has 
    decided that if the motor is sufficient to propel the bicycle without 
    any muscular input from the operator, even though at a diminished 
    speed, then the bicycle is driven by mechanical power within the 
    meaning of the definition and is a motor vehicle. On the other hand, if 
    the power assist is insufficient alone to propel the bicycle, and 
    therefore only supplements muscular power (as in helping traverse hilly 
    terrains), the bicycle is not a motor vehicle under NHTSA regulations.
        If a motorized bicycle is treated as a motor vehicle, it is 
    classified, in the first instance, as a ``motorcycle'' for the purposes 
    of the FMVSSs. Under 49 CFR Sec. 571.3(b), a motorcycle is defined as a 
    motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of 
    the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in 
    contact with the ground. As a motorcycle, a motorized bicycle may also 
    be classified as a ``motor driven cycle.'' A motor-driven cycle is 
    defined as a motorcycle with a motor that produces five brake 
    horsepower or less. Certain FMVSSs, such as the lighting standard, 
    FMVSS No. 108, specify less stringent requirements for motor-driven 
    cycles than for other motorcycles. FMVSS No. 108 allows motor-driven 
    cycles to have a headlamp with a single beam, but requires other 
    motorcycles to have a headlight with upper and lower beams). Other 
    standards specify lesser requirements for motor driven cycles of 
    limited performance, e.g., ``a motor-driven cycle whose speed 
    attainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less * * *'' (FMVSS No. 122, 
    establishing motorcycle braking requirements). FMVSS No. 123, which 
    specifies requirements for motorcycle controls and displays, allows a 
    motor-driven cycle the alternative of a rear wheel brake control 
    located on the left handlebar rather than on the right foot control.
    
    Petitioner's Argument
    
        As noted in the Introduction, Whizzer bases its argument for relief 
    on the extremely low level of performance of its motorized bicycle. The 
    petitioner claims that this is essentially a bicycle assisted by a 
    small motor, less than two horsepower, and that while it may be used 
    for very limited transportation, it is not practical for utility 
    purposes other than very short distances. The petition
    
    [[Page 38803]]
    
    requests relief from meeting the FMVSS because the Whizzer requires 
    human power to start from a static position, it will not exceed 25 
    mph., it is extremely light weight, and is designed to accommodate one 
    person only. In its October 2, letter, the petitioner argued that it 
    should be allowed to offer the Whizzer without lighting, so as to deter 
    night riding. Recognizing that some riders will still go out at night, 
    the petitioner offered to provide a large prominent warning decal with 
    the advisory ``not approved for night riding''.
        Finally, the petitioner claims that the Whizzer is a nostalgia 
    vehicle. The petitioner did not elaborate on this point. NHTSA assumes 
    that the petitioner is arguing that since its goal is to produce a 
    replica of a 1940s style vehicle, it should not be required to depart 
    from the original design in order to conform the bicycle to standards 
    intended for vehicles manufactured a half century later.
    
    Discussion and Decision
    
        NHTSA concludes that the Whizzer is a motor vehicle. This 
    conclusion is based on the information presented by the petitioner that 
    the Whizzer is fully capable of 25 mph sustained speed without pedal 
    assist. Since the Whizzer has two wheels and its motor is less than 2 
    horsepower, it is classified not only as a motorcycle, but also as a 
    motor-driven cycle.
        The petitioner has provided no justification for excepting the 
    Whizzer and other motorized bicycles from compliance with the FMVSS. 
    Although the Whizzer is intended to replicate a design of the 1940s, 
    the public expects, and is entitled to, a greater degree of safety on 
    the road than was available 50 years ago. Federal motor vehicle safety 
    standards are now in place for the purpose of protecting the operators 
    of two-wheeled vehicles in an environment of heavier road traffic than 
    existed half a century past. For 30 years, motor-driven cycles have 
    been built and certified to comply with FMVSS addressing not only 
    lighting, braking, and controls and displays as discussed, but also 
    with FMVSS covering brake hoses, mirrors, tires and rims, and glazing 
    if provided. Over the years, NHTSA has learned the importance of 
    ensuring that small vehicles are detectable by larger users of the 
    roadway. Detectability is enhanced by a vehicle's lamps and reflectors. 
    Whizzers of the 1940s were equipped with a magneto and no electrical 
    generating capability, and the only lamps available were add-on lamps 
    powered by self-contained batteries. Today, motor-driven cycles have 
    either generators or alternators to provide power for Federally 
    required headlamps, taillamps, turn signals and stop lamps. Congress 
    expected NHTSA to promulgate standards that would continue to allow the 
    public a wide choice of vehicles, but it did not intend that NHTSA do 
    so at the expense of safety. Therefore, the agency does not accept the 
    petitioner's argument that it should be allowed to produce a motor-
    driven cycle without the safety equipment found on other motor-driven 
    cycles, simply because to require compliance might detract from the 
    authenticity of the vehicle.
        NHTSA has completed its technical review pursuant to 49 CFR Sec. 
    552.6, and, taking into account other appropriate factors as discussed 
    above, denies the petition by Whizzer Motorbike Company.
    
        Authority: Delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
    
        Issued on: July 15, 1998.
    L. Robert Shelton,
    Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
    [FR Doc. 98-19216 Filed 7-17-98; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
07/20/1998
Department:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Entry Type:
Proposed Rule
Action:
Denial of petition for rulemaking.
Document Number:
98-19216
Pages:
38802-38803 (2 pages)
PDF File:
98-19216.pdf
CFR: (1)
49 CFR 571