[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