Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules 38799

Further, LEDs are beginning to be used

as a light source for the main stop lamps

as well. When the population increases,

perhaps this will give the agency

sufficient data to support proposing

such a requirement.

In accordance with 49 CFR part 552,

this completes the agency’s review of

the petition. The agency has concluded

that there is no reasonable possibility

that the amendment requested by the

petitioner would be issued at the

conclusion of a rulemaking proceeding.

Accordingly, it denies Mr. Roberts’

petition.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30103, 30162;

delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and

501.8.

Issued on: July 13, 1998.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 98–19154 Filed 7–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[NHTSA Docket No. 98–4027, Notice 1]

RIN 2127–AG01

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Steering Control Rearward

Displacement

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Termination of rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document terminates a

rulemaking proceeding in which the

agency proposed to exclude from its

standard on steering control rearward

displacement air bag-equipped

passenger cars and other light vehicles

certified as complying with the agency’s

occupant crash protection standard

based upon the frontal barrier crash test.

The agency proposed this exclusion

because the engineering need to provide

a stable air bag platform in order to

perform consistently during an

unrestrained dynamic crash test would

ensure that vehicle manufacturers

design their vehicles so that there would

be little steering control rearward

displacement. That necessity would

obviate the need for manufacturers to

conduct another crash test just to certify

steering control rearward displacement

performance.

However, since the proposal, the

agency has temporarily allowed the

manufacturers to certify their vehicles to

the occupant protection standard based

upon an unrestrained sled test and a

restrained (or belted) barrier test. The

capability of the steering column to

provide a stable platform for the air bag

is not tested in a sled test since no

structural deformation of the structure

occurs nor does the restrained occupant

30 mph barrier test adequately evaluate

the platform stability since the belted

dummy does not significantly load the

steering assembly. NHTSA anticipates

that nearly all manufacturers will certify

to the unrestrained occupant protection

standard based on the less rigorous sled

test procedure. Therefore, the agency is

terminating this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

On technical matters: Mr. John Lee, in

the Office of Crashworthiness

Standards, telephone: 202–366–4924,

facsimile: 202–493–2739, e-mail:

jlee@nhtsa.dot.gov.

On legal matters: Mr. Paul Atelsek, in

the Office of the Chief Counsel,

telephone: 202–366–2992, e-mail:

patelsek@nhtsa.dot.gov.

The mailing address is: National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington,

DC, 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Pursuant to the March 4, 1995

directive, ‘‘Regulatory Reinvention

Initiative,’’ from the President to the

heads of departments and agencies,

NHTSA undertook a review of all its

regulations and directives. During the

course of this review, the agency

identified several regulations as

potential candidates for rescission or

amendment. One of these regulations

was Standard No. 204, Steering Control

Rearward Displacement. The agency

concluded at that time that requiring

compliance with the standard appeared

to be redundant for certain vehicles,

given the actions which were separately

required to be taken to comply with

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash

Protection.

Standard No. 204 specifies a dynamic

crash test to measure the rearward

displacement of a vehicle’s steering

column to ensure that the driver is not

‘‘speared’’ by the column. The standard

specifies that the upper end of the

steering column and shaft may not be

displaced horizontally rearward more

than 5 inches (127 mm) in a 30-mileper-hour frontal barrier crash test. The

standard applies to passenger cars and

other light vehicles.

Passenger cars and light vehicles are

also required to pass a dynamic test

specified in Standard No. 208,

Occupant crash protection. For

unrestrained occupants, Standard No.

208 requires either a frontal impact

crash test into a rigid barrier at 30 mph

or a dynamic sled test, with the

performance measured by the impact

forces on an anthropomorphic test

dummy rather than by the displacement

of a vehicle component. Air bags

became mandatory in all passenger cars

on September 1, 1997, and will be

required in all light vehicles by

September 1, 1998. Since March 19,

1997, it has been permissible to certify

vehicles on the basis of a sled test

instead of a crash test. The agency

believes that the great majority of auto

manufacturers are now certifying

vehicles using the sled test.

On November 16, 1995, the agency

published a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, (60 FR 57565) proposing

that vehicles be excluded from having to

comply with Standard No. 204 if these

vehicles were certified to comply with

the frontal barrier crash test

requirements of Standard No. 208 by

means of an air bag. The basis for the

proposal was that the engineering

considerations that govern designing a

vehicle with air bags would ensure that

the vehicle would have the same

performance for steering control

rearward displacement as is currently

required by Standard No. 204. One of

the most fundamental engineering

considerations when designing an air

bag equipped vehicle is to provide a

secure platform for the air bag. The

designer must know the relative

location of the air bag and the protected

occupant during a crash because, if the

air bag platform were moving up or

down, or backward or forward during a

crash, it could adversely affect air bag

performance.

Since the driver’s air bag is located in

the steering column, the NPRM stated

that the engineering measures necessary

to provide a secure air bag platform will

also ensure that Standard No. 204’s

specified performance for steering

control rearward displacement is

satisfied, even if the standard were no

longer applicable. In case the public

knew of some factors that NHTSA had

not considered, NHTSA also asked for

comment on whether there was any

possibility that the proposed Standard

No. 204 exclusion might result in an

increase in injuries not protected against

by Standard No. 208. The NPRM stated

that the proposed rule would have

minor, nonquantifiable cost savings.

The public comment period closed on

January 16, 1997.

Subsequent to the issuance of the

NPRM on Standard No. 204, on March

19, 1997, in order to facilitate the
38800 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules

depowering of air bags, the agency

temporarily amended Standard 208 to

permit vehicle manufacturers to certify

their vehicles using a sled test

procedure, rather than a crash test. In

the sled test, there is no possibility of

steering column movement due to

deformation of the vehicle structure

from crash forces, regardless of how

good or bad the steering column design.

Although the standard still permits

manufacturers to certify their vehicles

using the frontal barrier crash test using

an unrestrained test dummy, as

specified in S5.1, as noted above,

essentially all manufacturers are now

using the sled test for Standard No. 208

certification. The standard still requires

a belted barrier test. Currently, the

agency is in the midst of developing an

NPRM on improved air bags that may

reinstate some form of barrier test

requirement.

II. Summary of Public Comments

The agency received six comments on

the proposal to exclude air bag

equipped vehicles from Standard No.

204. Advocates for Highway and Auto

Safety (Advocates) and Mr. Lee F.

Graser (an automobile reconstructionist)

were generally opposed to the proposal.

The Insurance Institute for Highway

Safety (IIHS), the American Automobile

Manufacturers Association (AAMA),

and two auto manufacturers,

Volkswagen and Mitsubishi, supported

the proposal. The following is a brief

summary of these comments.

As noted above, two commenters

disagreed with excluding these vehicles

from Standard No. 204. Mr. Lee F.

Graser, President of LAS-KDS Inc. (an

automobile reconstructionist)

commented that the current standard

was ‘‘incredibly successful in removing

the ‘‘spear-like’’ qualities from the

steering column.’’ He based his

comment on 30 years of experience in

rebuilding automobiles damaged in a

crash, and examining thousands of

wrecked automobiles. He agreed that

vehicles will continue to meet the crash

test standards at 30 miles per hour, but

said that in more severe (i.e., higher

speed) crashes, the exclusion from the

requirement will remove an important

safety margin and result in the

reintroduction of a hazard eliminated

long ago.

Advocates was concerned that the

exclusion would exacerbate a danger

that it believes exists even with

Standard No. 204 in place. Its main

concern was the ‘‘dangers due to the

proximate positioning of the drivers to

the steering wheel air bag modules.’’ It

noted that short women and many older

drivers must sit further forward than

other drivers to comfortably reach the

steering wheel. In such cases, it stated,

the distance from the air bag to the

driver’s chest would be 6.5 to 4.5

inches. Drivers seated in this zone could

be injured by the deploying air bag.

Advocates’ apparent concern with this

exclusion is that, without Standard No.

204, the steering column would move

rearward, even closer to the driver, prior

to air bag deployment. If this occurred,

there would be a very forceful impact of

the air bag on the driver (air bag

deployment force would be greater on a

driver closer to the housing).

Advocates also argued that there was

no supporting data for the exclusion and

therefore the agency’s proposed action

could be considered capricious.

Advocates commented that NHTSA has

no data to support the presumption that

manufacturers will continue to maintain

compliance with Standard No. 204 if

this exclusion is provided. Advocates

also suggested that NHTSA needs test

data showing that vehicles that do not

comply with Standard No. 204 could

still ensure safety of small passengers

and not increase the risk of exacerbating

trauma from steering wheels.

Finally, Advocates noted the request

for comment that NHTSA had issued on

air bag-related injuries (NHTSA Docket

74–14, Notice 97, 60 FR 65554,

November 9, 1995). Advocates stated

that it could not understand why the

agency would complicate the

understanding of this complex injury

issue by adding another major variable

(i.e., a presumed increase in steering

wheel movement).

Four commenters agreed with

excluding air bag equipped vehicles

from Standard No. 204. Mitsubishi

concurred without substantive

comment. Volkswagen concurred and

commented that the exclusion would

save it testing costs of about $20,000

plus the cost of the vehicle for each car

line because an extra crash test was

required by Standard No. 204. It stated

that the savings might be as much as

$700,000 on a new car line, because a

prototype vehicle would have to be used

in the testing.

Volkswagen also noted that a proposal

to make a similar exclusion from the

ECE version of this standard is under

discussion in Europe, implying that

NHTSA should adopt the proposal in

the interest of harmonization.

The AAMA supported the proposal.

The AAMA confirmed that for an air bag

equipped vehicle, the steering column

location must remain relatively stable

during a Standard No. 208 barrier test to

consistently meet the test requirements.

It provided an analysis of NHTSA’s own

Standard No. 204 ‘‘indicant’’ test reports

for member companies: GM, Ford and

Chrysler. The AAMA stated that the

NHTSA indicant test data showed that

the displacement was zero in most cases

and well below the 5.0 inch (12.7 cm)

limit in all cases. The AAMA also

pointed out that, in a 1981 evaluation of

the standard, the agency found that

steering wheel rearward displacement

was highly correlated to the vehicle’s

change in velocity during the crash

(Delta V). ‘‘An Evaluation of Federal

Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for

Passenger Car Steering Assemblies’’,

Standard No. 203—‘‘Impact Protection

for the Driver’’, Standard No. 204

‘‘Rearward Column Displacement,’’

January 1981, NHTSA Technical Report

DOT HS 805 705. The agency evaluation

indicated that, in crashes with a Delta

V of less than 15 mph, there was

virtually no rearward displacement. The

AAMA did not provide any data from

the motor vehicle manufacturers. It

agreed that the proposal should be

effective 30 days after the final rule.

The IIHS supported the proposed

exclusion from Standard No. 204,

stating that the current dynamic test in

Standard No. 208 with an unbelted

dummy is more than sufficient to limit

excessive rearward steering wheel

displacement in a centric crash

specified by Standard No. 204.

However, it was concerned that

Standard No. 204’s centric flat barrier

crash test is inadequate, because

steering control rearward displacement

continues to be a problem in offset

crashes. To support this offset crash

concern, IIHS cited data from offset

crash tests of 16 vehicles that showed

rearward displacements of up to 6.7

inches (17 cm). It also provided a

summary of an actual fatal offset crash

which it believes might not have been

fatal if the column had not moved

rearward by 7.5 inches (19 cm). IIHS

urged NHTSA to continue work on

offset testing, and explore rulemaking

on the subject.

III. Discussion of Issues

A. Don’t Change a Standard That Works

Mr. Graser stated that Standard No.

204 has resulted in significant

improvement in occupant protection by

removing the spear-like qualities of the

steering column. Advocates stated that

there was no basis for the agency’s

presumption that motor vehicle

manufacturers will maintain

compliance after exclusion from

Standard No. 204.

The agency agrees with Mr. Graser

that designs that conform to Standard

No. 204 mitigate chest injuries. The

standard did accomplish its purpose,
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules 38801

according to the agency’s analysis. In

the agency’s regulatory evaluation of the

benefits of its steering column

regulations (Standard Nos. 204 and 203,

Impact Protection for the Driver From

the Steering Control System), NHTSA

estimated that the two steering column

standards in tandem were cost-effective

and prevented 1,300 fatalities and

23,000 nonfatal injuries per year when

all automobiles complied. (Note that the

agency has already excluded from

Standard No. 203 vehicles that comply

with Standard No. 208 using air bags

because it concluded that requiring

compliance with Standard No. 203 was

redundant (40 FR 17992, April 24,

1975)). Therefore, Standard No. 204 did

prompt some useful changes in steering

column design.

The NPRM was based on the

assumption that manufacturers would

have to conduct a dynamic crash test

with unbelted dummies for Standard

No. 208, an assumption that is no longer

valid.

Vehicle manufacturers must design a

stable air bag platform to ensure good,

repeatable performance for the air bag in

a crash. In other words, steering

columns must be designed to ensure the

air bag mounted in the steering wheel

hub will remain in a constant position

relative to the driver during a crash.

However, Standard No. 208’s unbelted

performance requirements would

adequately control steering column

movement only during a full-barrier

crash test. Conversely, the sled test does

not ensure that the steering column will

be adequately designed. Additionally,

the belted occupant 30 mph barrier test,

which is still required, does not

adequately evaluate the air bag platform

stability since the belted dummy does

not significantly load the steering

assembly.

B. Risk of Air Bag Injury to Small

Occupants

In response to Advocates’ concern

about negative safety impacts on smaller

occupants, the agency notes that

rearward displacement of the steering

column may not contribute to close

proximity air bag deployments because

displacement and deployment may

occur at different times during a crash.

To illustrate, in a standard barrier test

the air bag begins to deploy between 15

to 20 milliseconds after impact and is

completely deployed by 50 to 60

milliseconds after impact. In these crash

tests, steering column dynamic rearward

displacement and steering column

collapse almost always occur after

completion of air bag deployment,

starting at about 60 milliseconds. During

a Standard No. 208 unbelted full barrier

impact compliance test, this steering

column-occupant interaction is

measured by the Hybrid III dummy.

Therefore, excessive rearward

displacement of the steering column in

unbelted full barrier-type impacts

would likely impact the dummy and

cause a failure of the Standard No. 208

test. However, due to the wide variety

of crash types in the real-world, the

agency can see the potential for

situations where steering column

movement and air bag deployment

could occur at the same time.

C. Supporting Data

In response to Advocates’ complaint

that NHTSA has no data to justify this

proposed exclusion, NHTSA based its

NPRM on an engineering analysis of the

steering column design requirements

implied or necessitated by the thenexisting Standard No. 208 full-barrier

impact requirements.

Moreover, it would have been

impossible to generate the test data on

non-compliant vehicles that Advocates

says is necessary. Evidence indicates

that all vehicle designs comply with

Standard No. 204, so there are no noncomplying vehicles to test. NHTSA

reviewed the results of Standard No.

204 compliance tests before publishing

the NPRM. The results of that review are

in the docket. In that review, the agency

found that in the last 28 years, there

have been three cases worthy of further

investigation, but no actual noncompliances. No air bag-equipped

vehicle has failed this test.

The agency reviewed its 1996

calendar year information requests to

vehicle manufacturers, which resulted

in the submission of 36 reports of

Standard No. 204 compliance tests. This

1996 sample includes 25 passenger cars

and 11 light trucks. A summary of the

steering column rearward displacement

data from these manufacturer reports

has been placed in the docket. The

average value of the maximum dynamic

horizontal deflection was 42 millimeters

(1.6 inches). The range of horizontal

deflections ranged from 0 mm (0 in.) to

99 mm (3.9 in.).

However, history may not be a guide

when the assumptions are changed.

NHTSA agrees with Advocates that

there is no evidence that sled-tested and

belted-barrier-tested vehicles will

continue to comply with Standard No.

204.

D. Cost

The agency believes the cost savings

that Volkswagen suggested would result

from excluding vehicles from Standard

No. 204 certification are overly

optimistic. Vehicle manufacturers

would probably ‘‘piggyback’’ tests on a

prototype, i.e., the single test of a

prototype vehicle could include

indicant tests of Standard Nos. 204, 208,

212, and 301. Therefore, computer

modeling and piggyback testing would

significantly reduce this cost burden,

especially during the vehicle

developmental phase.

E. Offset Testing Program

In response to IIHS’ urging that

NHTSA pursue offset testing, the agency

notes that an offset testing program is

part of the Standard No. 208 Upgrade

program, one of the elements in

NHTSA’s Strategic Execution Plan.

Additionally, on January 2, 1998, the

Center for Auto Safety (CAS) submitted

a petition for rulemaking, requesting the

addition of an offset test requirement

within Standard No. 208.

The agency’s FY 1997 and FY 1998

appropriations included funding to

work on establishing a frontal offset

crash protection safety standard.

NHTSA will analyze the steering

column behavior in offset crashes as

part of this effort. The issues raised by

IIHS and CAS, of whether to include a

steering column displacement

restriction within the requirements of an

offset test standard, will be included in

the offset program decision-making

process.

IV. Agency Decision

In the final rule (March 19, 1997; 62

FR 12960) enhancing manufacturers’

abilities to depower air bags, NHTSA

decided to allow the sled test as a

temporary measure given the need to

provide manufacturers with maximum

flexibility to respond rapidly to the risk

posed by air bag activation in low speed

crashes. In the final rule’s preamble,

NHTSA discussed the disadvantages of

the sled test as an indicator of real

world performance, including the fact

that the sled test does not evaluate ‘‘the

steering column’s energy absorbing

characteristics and load bearing

capability.’’ (62 FR at 12966). Sled

testing effectively removes the

measurement of the stability of the

steering column as a factor affecting

measured levels of occupant protection

performance. NHTSA has never

proposed to exclude from Standard No.

204 vehicles whose certification of

compliance with Standard No. 208 was

based upon the sled test or the belted

barrier test.

NHTSA understands that almost all

the vehicle manufacturers are now

certifying compliance with Standard

No. 208 based on the sled test, instead

of the unbelted frontal barrier test.

Further, the manufacturers have
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