Dont have much time now or my glasses but he is a direct quote from the minutes of the DMV meeting where they decided to follow the fed law regarding motorized bikes. Guess they think the Feds thing is law too. Maybe someone should tell them it's only a suggestion. After is more of the minutes including this quote. Dogman I mostly agree with you, especially that scooters will ruin it for the rest of us. More later, maybe.
"Since adopting the statutory
definition of "motorized bicycle" would violate federal law, specifically 15 USC 2085, the
Motor Vehicle Commission is not adopting the proposed amended definition of
"motorized bicycle" which would have added the words, "or is powered by an electric
drive motor'' to the definition. Instead, the Motor Vehicle Commission is leaving the
definition of "motorized bicycle" unchanged from how it appears in the existing rule."
MVC says that this puts them no longer in direct conflict with HR 727 and "bicycle" in 16 C.F.R. 1512.2 then it goes on to all the other stuff that was readopted from the original proposal back in Oct 2010
TRANSPORTATION
MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION
Motorized Bicycles
Readoption with Amendment: N.J.A.C. 13:25
Proposed: October 4,2010 al42 N.J.R. 231a@).
Adopted: February 8, 2011 by the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission Board,
Raymond P. Martinez, Chair.
Filed:
Authority: N.J.S.A. 39'2-3,39:3-10a, 39:4-14.3,39:4-14.3a et seq. and 39:5-30.
Effective Date:
Expiration Date:
Summary of Public Comments and Agency Responses:
COMMENT: Sidney Kuropchak, Executive Director of the Light Electric Vehicle
Association (LEVA) indicated that Federal law (HR727') states that an electrically driven
bicycle is considered a "bicycle" and the bicycle laws apply if the electrically driven
bicycle has functional pedals, a less than 750 watt motor and has a maximum speed
capability of less than 20 miles per hour. He asked if LEVA could organize a
demonstration of low-speed electric bicycles to the Motor Vehicle Commission before
the Motor Vehicle Commission amends the language in the motorized,bicycle rules.
RESPONSE: H.R.727 which was enacted as 15 U.S.C. 2085 does, indeed, state
"...the term 'low-speed electric bicycle' means a two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully
operable maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a
motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph." Sec.
page 2
38.(b). ln Sec. 38.(d), it states, "This section shall supercede any State law or
requirement with respect to low-speed electric bicycles to the extent that such State law
or requirement is more stringent than the Federal law or requirements referred to in
subsection (a)." There is no need to demonstrate low-speed electric bicycles to the
Motor Vehicle Commission. The Motor Vehicle Commission is not going to adopt the
amended "motorized bicycle" definition which specifically references electric drive
motors; the existing definition will be readopted without change.
COMMENT: Mr. Kuropchak forwarded a comment from Larry Pizzi, a LEVA board
member and the president of Currie Technologies. Mr. Pizzi stated that he believes
"...that NJ is attempting to redefine the Federal definition of a "Low Speed Electric
Bicycle" exactly the same way that it defines a "Motorized Bicycle" under the NJ Moped
law (50cc. 1 .5 brake HP,25 mph max speed) by adding the phrase "or is powered by an
electric drive motor, in an attempt to categorize low-speed electric bikes and motor
vehicles. This is either an oversight of the Federal law in HR727 or a misunderstanding
about low-speed electric bikes." Mr. Pizzi suggested requesting permission for the
LEVA to have an opportunity to demonstrate low-speed electric bicycles to the New
Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission.
RESPONSE: The Motor Vehicle Commission attempted to conform the regulatory
definition of "motorized bicycle" in N.J.A.C. 13:25-1.1 with the statutory definition of
"motorized bicycle" in N.J.S.A. 39:1-1 to be consistent. The definition of "motorized
bicycle" in N.J.S.A 39:1-1 was amended on July 19, 2005, as part of a law that
established definitions for "motorized scooters," "motorized skateboards", and
"motorized wheelchairs," and amended the definition of "motorcycles." .The New Jersey
page 3
Legislature and the Motor Vehicle Commission both apparently overlooked H.R. 727
which is codified at 15 USC 2085.)
COMMENT: Mr. Kuropchak also fonrvarded a comment from Eric Pearlman, General
Manager, North America, Ultra Motor. Mr. Pearlman indicated that he has spoken with
some independent bike shop owners in New Jersey who have expanded their sales
product line to include electric bikes. lf additional requirements are imposed on electric
bike drivers, "the electric bike will go the way of the moped in NJ, almost non-existent.
ln addition, traditional Bikes travel much faster than our e-bikes on pedal power alone,
so it cannot be just a decision based on safety. Bottom-line, this law will cripple the
entrepreneur or lndependent Bike shop at a time when they need support the most."
Mr. Pearlman says that Ultra Motor plans to open a satellite office and distribution
center in New Jersey. He believes that it will encourage other green businesses to
ejther open in New Jersey. The imposition of additional requirements on electric bike
riders may force Ultra Motor to reconsider locating facilities here and becoming a New
Jersey employer.
RESPONSE: The Motor Vehicle Commission is withdrawing the proposed
amendment to the definition of "motorized bicycle" in N.J.A.C. 13:25-1.1 and is
readopting the motorized bicycle rules without change. The definition of "motorized
bicycle" will remain the same as it is in the existing rule.
COMMENT: Larry Pizzi, President, Currie Acquisitions LLC, dlbla Currie Technologies,
also sent a separate letter with his comments. He indicated, in relevant part:
"First and foremost, I believe that the state's Motorized Bicycle regulations were created
and pertain to "Mopeds", which are two wheeled, gasoline powered motor vehicles
page 4
(50cc, 1.5 brake horsepower,25 mph max speed) that use pedals to start the engine,
which became popular very briefly, during the 1970's. Because, in my opinion, Low-
Speed Electric Bicycles, which are defined by Federal law HR 727 (copy attached for
your reference), bear little or no similarities to Mopeds, they should not be classified
with the same or similar restrictive regulations.
ln fact, electric bicycles that meet the guidelines as defined in section 38(b) of the
Consumer Product Safety Act are much more similar to a conventional bicycle then (sic)
any motor vehicle. That is precisely why the Federal government clearly stated that
"low-speed electric bicycles shall not be considered a motor vehicle as defined by
section 30102(6) of title 49, United States Code." Section 38 of the CPSA in section (d)
goes on to read "This section shall supersede any State law or requirement with respect
to low-speed electric bicycles to the extent that such State law or requirement is more
stringent then (sic) the federal law or requirements referred to in section (a)."
RESPONSE: The commenter is correct that these rules were originally intended to
cover mopeds. Again, the Motor Vehicle Commission did not intend to substantially
change the scope or reach of these rules in this readoption. lt merely intended to
"conform" the definition of "motorized bicycle" to comply with the New Jersey statutory
definition of "motorized bicycle" in N.J.S.A. 39:1-1. Since adopting the statutory
definition of "motorized bicycle" would violate federal law, specifically 15 USC 2085, the
Motor Vehicle Commission is not adopting the proposed amended definition of
"motorized bicycle" which would have added the words, "or is powered by an electric
drive motor'' to the definition. Instead, the Motor Vehicle Commission is leaving the
definition of "motorized bicycle" unchanged from how it appears in the existing rule.
page 5
Federal Standards Statement
Now that the reference to electric motors has been deleted from the state definition
of "motorized bicycle," the state regulatory -definition of "motorized bicycle" is no longer
in direct conflict with the federal definition of "low-speed electric bicycle" in 15 U.S.C.
2085 or "bicycle" in 16 C.F.R. 1512.2.
N.J.A.C. 13:25-2.1 requires that as a prerequisite to the issuance of motorized
bicycle learner's permits, applicants therefor must submit proof to the Commission that
the applicant's presence in the United States is authorized under Federal law in the
manner set forth in N.J.A.C.13:21-8.2(a), (b) and (c). N.J.A.C. 13:25-3.1(b) imposes
the same requirement as a prerequisite to the issuance of motorized bicycle licenses to
applicants therefor. The rules, which are reflective of the public policy of this State
embodied in P.L. 1993, c.34, do not impose a standard or requirement that exceeds the
standards or requirements imposed by Federal law.
N.J.A.C. 13:25-9.3, which provides that protective helmets used by the operators
of motorized bicycles must have a reflectorized surface on both sides or have securely
affixed thereto reflectorized material on both the left and right side of the helmet, sets
forth a requirement that exceeds the standards for motorcycle helmets set forth in 49
CFR 5571.218. The Federal motorcycle helmet standards have been made applicable
to helmets used by motorized bicycle operators pursuant to N.J.A.C. 13:25-9.2, but the
Federal standard does not contain the reflectorization requirement set forth in N.J.A.C.
13:25-9.3. However, N.J.A.C. 13:25-9.3 also requires the protective helmets used by
motorized bicycle operators to be in compliance with N.J.S.A. 39:3-76.7, a New Jersey
statute pertaining to motorcycle helmets that predates the adoption of the
page 6
aforementioned Federal standard and that contains a reflectorization requirement.
Although the New Jersey Legislature has amended N.J.S.A. 39:3-76.7 three times since
the adoption of 49 CFR 5571.218, it has chosen not to delete the reflectorization
provision contained in the statute. Accordingly, the Commission has retained the
reflectorization requirement for protective helmets set forth in N.J.A.C. 13:25-9.3
because, although the cost to motorized bicycle operators to reflectorize a protective
helmet is relatively modest (it may be accomplished by means of reflective tape), the
use of reflectorization may prevent accidents by assisting other motorists in the
identification of motorized bicycle operators during nighttime hours. The Commission
discerns no valid basis upon which to impose less stringent protective helmet standards
on operators of motorized bicycles.
N.J.A.C. 13:25-9.2, 9.4 and 9.5 each require compliance with the Federal
motorcycle helmet standards set forth in 49 CFR 5571.218, but do not impose a
standard that exceeds the Federal standards.
A Federal standards analysis is not required for the remainder of the rules in
N.J.A.C. 13:25 that are proposed for readoption and amendment because the subject
matter of said rules is authorized under State law and is not subject to Federal
requirements or standards.
Full text of the adopted amendment follows:
SUBCHAPTERl. DEFINITIONS
13:25-1.1 Definitions
The following words and terms, when used in this chapter, shall have the following
meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
page 7
the part in the [] is what was removed
"Motorized bicycle" means a pedal bicycle having a helper motor characterized in
that either the maximum piston displacement is less than 50 c.c. or said motor is rated
at no more than 1.5 brake horsepower [or is powered by an electric drive motor] and
said bicycle is capable of a maximum speed of no more than 25 miles per hour on a flat
surface.
Been that way almost two years now. Who hoo! We have no laws at all here! 8)
