Fourth, the petitioner argues that redefining ``motorcycle'' as it requests is in the public interest and offers three reasons for that belief.

The agency has carefully considered this petition for rulemaking to redefine ``motorcycle'' to accommodate its product and denies it for the reasons set forth below.

Statutory Background

The purpose of the Vehicle Safety Act is ``to reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents.'' 49 U.S.C. Section 30101. Given that purpose, Congress determined that it was necessary to ``prescribe motor vehicle safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.'' Id. Each standard is required to be ``practicable,'' ``meet the need for motor vehicle safety,'' and ``be stated in objective terms.'' 49 U.S.C. Section 30111(a). The Act provides further that in prescribing a motor vehicle safety standard, the Secretary shall
* * *
(3) consider whether a proposed standard is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed; and (4) consider the extent to which the standard will carry out section 30101 of this title.
49 U.S.C. 30111(b).
Definitions and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for Different Types of Motor Vehicles

Pursuant to the mandate to issue FMVSSs, NHTSA has defined a variety of types of motor vehicles, including motorcycles and passenger cars, and established standards for them. NHTSA defines the term ``motorcycle'' 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.'' 49 CFR 571.3(b). This definition was established at the same time as the initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in 1967,\4\ and has not been amended. NHTSA defines ``passenger car'' as ``a motor vehicle with motive power, except a lowspeed vehicle, multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less.'' \5\ 49 CFR 571.3(b). Thus, unlike the case of a motorcycle, whether a vehicle is a ``passenger car'' does not depend on the number of wheels it is designed to travel on in contact with the ground.
\4\ 32 FR 2408, at 2409 (February 3, 1967).
\5\ NHTSA defines the term ``low speed vehicle'' as follows:

Lowspeed vehicle (LSV) means a motor vehicle,
(1) That is 4wheeled,
(2) Whose speed attainable in 1.6 km (1 mile) is more than 32 kilometers per hour (20 miles per hour) and not more than 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) on a paved level surface, and
(3) Whose GVWR is less than 1,361 kilograms (3,000 pounds).

49 CFR 571.3(a).
Petitioner Has Not Shown That Redefining ``Motorcycle'' Would Be Consistent With the Interests of Motor Vehicle Safety

Since the fundamental purpose of the Vehicle Safety Act is to promote vehicle safety, the agency seeks above all to promote that purpose, after due consideration of all relevant factors, in determining whether a particular action should be taken under the Act.

This purpose also informs our interpretation of the Act. While the Act obligates the agency to consider whether a standard is appropriate for the types of vehicles to which it applies, the primary intended effect of that requirement is to require the agency to take care that its standards do not have the effect of eliminating existing vehicle types. It does not compel the agency to take actions to facilitate the proliferation of unusual vehicle designs, particularly those that present new, potentially significant safety risks.

Thus, it is important that the agency take great care in even contemplating the possibility of revising its definitions of motor vehicle types so as to move some vehicles from the passenger car category, which is subject to a wide array of requirements for safety features and systems, to the motorcycle category, which is subject to significantly narrower array of safety requirements. From its earliest years, the agency has demonstrated concern that the combination of vehicle design trends and vehicle type definitional changes could have the effect of making some vehicles subject to less comprehensive arrays of safety requirements than those applicable to motor vehicle types like passenger cars and trucks. In the early 1970's, the agency issued a number of notices concerning the treatment of threewheeled motorcycles and very light fourwheeled vehicles under the FMVSS.

Given the steadily rising death toll among motorcyclists, it is particularly important for the agency to exercise great caution in taking any action that would create a new variety of vehicles with motorcyclelike bodies. In June 2006, NHTSA issued a report, Recent Trends in Fatal Motorcycle Crashes: An Update,\6\ which reported that since 1997, motorcycle rider fatalities have increased by 89 percent from 2,116 to 4,008 in 2004: ``The latest 2004 data show that motorcycle rider fatalities increased for the seventh year in a row since 1997.'' This report was subsequently updated on August 22, [[Page 67845]]
2006, when NHTSA issued a press release \7\ announcing that motorcycle fatalities rose 13 percent from 4,028 in 2004 to 4,553 in 2005, meaning that motorcycle rider fatalities have increased for the eighth year in a row since 1997. The press release provided the following additional information about motorcycle rider fatalities:
\6\ DOT HS 810 606 Technical Report published by NHTSA's National Center for Statistics and Analysis.
\7\ NHTSA 0706, Tuesday August 22, 2006.

With these considerations in mind, the agency assessed the potential impact of allowing the Quad to meet the FMVSSs for motorcycles instead of those for passenger cars. The Quad is substantially less crashworthy than conventional four wheeled vehicles, given their enclosed occupant compartment, or even convertibles. For example, the Quad has limited structure for absorbing crash energies and does not have any safety belts or inflatable protective devices. While the Quad may have some advantages over a motorcycle (of either the two or threewheeled variety), e.g., it appears to be more stable, it does not appear to be markedly more crashworthy than a conventional motorcycle.

The net effect on vehicle safety of granting this petition would depend in part on the vehicle purchasing choices that Quad purchasers would have made in the absence of the availability of a Quad subject only to motorcycle FMVSSs. The petitioner suggests that as some motorcyclists age, they would switch from a motorcycle to a Quad instead of switching to a conventional vehicle like a passenger car. To the extent that granting this petition would have this result, there would be a lessening of safety. Likewise, to the extent that aging motorcyclists would purchase and operate Quads at higher speeds than they would two or three wheeled motorcycles, this too could reduce safety.

Based on the foregoing, NHTSA declines to redefine its longstanding definition of ``motorcycle.'' As stated in the background section, NHTSA's statutory mandate is to ``reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents.'' We see no safety benefit in encouraging more of a vehicle type with the safety record outlined above. Although petitioner asserts that its particular four wheeled vehicle is safer alternative to twoor threewheeled motorcycles, it nevertheless does not appear to meet any of the FMVSSs applicable to other fourwheeled vehicles, notably the passenger car standards. The agency recognizes that the number of Quads on the road is so limited that generation of meaningful crash data is not possible. Nevertheless, the agency has no data to allay its concerns described above. It does not have any data from any country where the four wheeled vehicles are used in combined traffic with motorcycles, passenger cars, and other vehicle types as to the crash experience of fourwheeled ``motorcycles'' compared with the other vehicle types.

We also note that a redefinition of ``motorcycle'' to include four wheeled vehicles would not apply only to the petitioner's products. Such a redefinition would encourage many (particularly lowerend) vehicle manufacturers to manufacture products that do not meet passenger car or multipurpose passenger vehicle safety standards, but to manufacture fourwheeled ``motorcycles.'' Permitting such an easy means to evade the more stringent passenger car or multipurpose passenger vehicle standards would not meet the need for motor vehicle safety.

Although the petitioner suggests a number of ways in which granting the petition might be in the public interest, the agency does not believe that those public interest arguments are sufficient to outweigh the agency's safety concerns. While agency has on at least one occasion adjusted its vehicle type definitions to allow a new class of vehicles (low speed vehicles) to come into being, it did so for vehicles that have very low speed capability and were expected to be operated in controlled environments, like gated communities, on roads with low posted speed limits. In addition, there were more substantial countervailing public interest arguments for permitting the LSV category than for permitting the Quad. In the final rule establishing the low speed vehicle category, the agency noted:

This final rule responds to a growing public interest in using golf cars and other similarsized, 4wheeled vehicles to make short trips for shopping, social and recreational purposes primarily within retirement or other planned communities with golf courses. These passengercarrying vehicles, although lowspeed, offer a variety of advantages, including comparatively lowcost and energy efficient mobility. Further, many of these vehicles are electric powered. The use of these vehicles, instead of larger, gasoline powered vehicles like passenger cars, provides quieter
transportation that does not pollute the air of the communities in which they are operated.

(63 FR 33194; June 17, 1998)

NHTSA notes that persons with disabilities are not excluded from using motorcycles. Those who cannot use one or both of their legs currently ride threewheeled motorcycles or twowheeled motorcycles with a side car. The foot brake on a motorcycle can also be modified for hand use. For those who ``no longer feel confident in operating a twowheeled motorcycle but enjoy the open environment that the Quad offers,'' convertible passenger cars provide a safe means of travel.

For these reasons, especially given the consistent rise in motorcycle deaths since 1997, NHTSA is unwilling to take chances with the lives of American motorists, and therefore declines to permit a new permutation of a vehicle type that is already contributing to a rise in the highway death rate.

Finally, the petitioner has asked that if NHTSA denies its petition, we provide advice on how it may import and sell the Quad in the United States. The denial of this petition means that before the Quad can be sold in the United States, the petitioner must ensure and certify that the Quad meets all applicable passenger car standards (See 49 CFR Part 571).

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, the petition is denied.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

Issued on: November 17, 2006.
Ronald L. Medford,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.
[FR Doc. E619824 Filed 112206; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 491059P

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

For non-legal issues, you may call Ms. Gayle Dalrymple of the NHTSA Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, at 2023665559.

For legal issues, you may call Ms. Dorothy Nakama of the NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel at 2023662992.

You may send mail to both of these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590.