38802 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules

indicated that they will continue to rely

on the sled test option while it remains

available.

The March 19, 1997, final rule

provided that the sled test option would

expire on September 1, 2001. Several

petitions for reconsideration have been

filed requesting the agency to extend

that date or to make the option

permanent. NHTSA is currently

considering those petitions. In addition,

as part of its advanced air bag

rulemaking, the agency is considering

the possibility of requiring some form of

barrier test.

Based on these understandings,

NHTSA is terminating rulemaking to

exclude from Standard No. 204 vehicles

that comply with Standard No. 208.

Given that the vehicle manufacturers are

expected to rely on the sled test (to meet

Standard No. 208 requirements) for the

next several years, there is no need

during that period for an exclusion from

Standard No. 204 for vehicles certified

to Standard No. 208 based on the barrier

test. If circumstances change in the

future, the agency will consider

appropriate action at that time.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,

30117, and 30166; delegations of authority at

49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8)

Issued on: July 14, 1998.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 98–19217 Filed 7–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

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 motordriven 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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 selfcontained batteries. Today, motordriven 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 motordriven 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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AC21

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Reopening of Comment

Period on Proposed Endangered

Status for Puccinellia Parishii (Parish’s

Alkali Grass)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of

reopening of public comment period.

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service

provides notice that the public comment

period is reopened for the proposal to

list Puccinellia parishii (Parish’s alkali

grass) as an endangered species

pursuant to the Endangered Species Act

of 1973, as amended. This small annual

grass occurs near desert springs, seeps,

and seasonally wet areas in Apache,

Coconino, and Yavapai counties,

Arizona; San Bernardino County,

California; and Catron, Cibola, Grant,

Hidalgo, McKinley, Sandoval, and San

Juan counties, New Mexico.

DATES: This comment period closes on

August 19, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and

materials should be sent to the Field

Supervisor, New Mexico Ecological

Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 2105 Osuna Road, NE.,

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87113.

Comments and materials received will

be available for public inspection during

normal business hours, by appointment,

at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charlie McDonald at the above address

or telephone (505) 346–2525.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Puccinellia parishii (Parish’s alkali

grass) was proposed for designation as

an endangered species under the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)

on March 28, 1994 (59 FR 14378). A 60-

day public comment period was

provided on the proposal. All interested

parties were requested to submit factual

reports or information that might

contribute to the accuracy and

effectiveness of any final action

resulting from the proposal. The U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)

received one request for a public

hearing, and a notice announcing the

public hearing and reopening the

comment period was published in the

Federal Register on August 30, 1994 (59

FR 44700). The public hearing was held

on September 15, 1994, in Tuba City,

Arizona.

Following the initial and reopened

comment periods and public hearing,

the Service received additional

information on the distribution,

abundance, habitat requirements, and

threats for Parish’s alkali grass. This

new information is summarized in the

following paragraphs.

Parish’s alkali grass is now known

from 29 sites as opposed to the 10 sites

reported in the proposed rule. The

known sites in New Mexico have

increased to 16 from the 1 that was

reported in the proposed rule. The new

sites for New Mexico are in Catron (1),

Cibola (1), Hidalgo (1), McKinley (6),

Sandoval (4), and San Juan (2) counties.

The 1 site reported in the proposed rule

is in Grant County. The known sites in

Arizona have increased to 11 from the

7 that were reported in the proposed

rule. The new sites for Arizona are in

Apache (3) and Yavapai (1) Counties.

The 7 sites reported in the proposed

rule are in Coconino County.

The known sites in California have

decreased to 1 from the 2 that were

reported in the proposed rule. Dr.

Andrew Sanders of the University of

California, Riverside identified the