Ft.Collins CO City Council meet TONIGHT: eBikes on trails?

Yeah, pretty much impossible to ride more than about 5 mph on californias poplular beach trails. But I never minded much being stuck behind a godess in a thong skating with a baby carriage. Here the carriage stroller blocks the trail all by herself. :lol:

Great name, Dottie. WC Fields make that one up? Obvious what her agenda is, single use path.
 
Spivak is dottie...

I see she is a League Cycling Instructor... probably one of the hard core ebike haters.

Dottie Spivak
Phone: 495-8565
Contact Email: moseslake_61@yahoo.com
 
I tried to sign up for that site to comment... and that didn't go so well.
besides, you can't see the comments unless you click a link.

I think these rules are silly and are easily circumvented by keeping the power low.. tiny rear motor covered by panniers.
There must not be enough people out there eBiking to really get anything done.

Man, Colorado seems to be quite bad with their bicycling laws.. here in Colorado Springs, we have pretty much no bike lanes and all roads are generally 35-45mph.

Did not see many bike lanes in Denver either.
No bike lanes in the middle of downtown either !!!

What the hell is up with this state..
 
Anybody know how being covered under the auspices of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act works? Does that work anywhere bikes are allowed for people w/ limited mobility?
 
Sad day for ebikers. Another win for the forces of fear and ignorance...

http://www.coloradoan.com/article/2...ollins-council-pulls-plug-e-bikes-city-trails
Fort Collins council pulls plug on e-bikes on city trails

10:56 PM, Nov. 15, 2011
Written by Kevin Duggan

The Fort Collins City Council on Tuesday effectively pulled the plug on allowing e-bikes on paved recreational trails with members expressing concern about safety and potential conflicts with pedestrians and other trail users.

Electric bikes are legitimate forms of transportation, said Council member Ben Manvel, but should be limited to streets and bike lanes. They don’t fit in on the already congested trail system, he said, given their weight and speed capabilities.

Manvel said he recently did an informal survey of trail users on their opinions of e-bikes. Many of the residents, who were primarily walkers, felt strongly that they should not be permitted, he said.

“After talking to people on the trails there is no way I could support e-bikes,” he said.

The proposal would have allowed electric-assist bicycles and “kick” trailers that provide a boost to bikes. The bikes would have been limited to 75 pounds and a top speed of 20 mph.

City staff members had proposed a one-year trial period for the devices to measure their impacts on the trails and other users. The ordinance was designed to exclude larger motorized vehicles, such as mopeds and scooters.

Several residents spoke before the council’s vote, with opinions evenly divided on whether to allow the devices.

But the majority of council members said they were not convinced of the need to allow the bikes. A broader discussion is needed on the entire trail system and how whether it need speed limits and more enforcement of existing rules, council members said.

Residents already complain about speeding bicycles on the trail system, which is heavily used by pedestrians, said Council member Lisa Poppaw.

“To me this is adding one more complication to the mix,” she said.

The council gave initial approval to a heavily amended ordinance that brings the city’s code into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, which allows the use of electric-assist bicycles by residents who require them for mobility purposes.

But it shut the door on broader usage.

Mayor Karen Weitkunat said the council shouldn’t base its decision on the perception of potential conflicts among trail-users. The trails are intended to be used for multiple uses, including recreation and transportation, she said.

E-bikes could be part of the mix and serve many residents well, she said.

“By shutting our eyes to this, we are saying we are not ready for alternate modes,” Weitkunat said.
 
Another report:
http://www.reporterherald.com/news/larimer-county/ci_19349084
Fort Collins council kills electric bike proposal

By Pamela Dickman
Posted: 11/16/2011 01:29:51 PM MST

FORT COLLINS — An effort to allow electric-assist bicycles on paved trails sputtered and died with the Fort Collins city council Tuesday.

“We're not prepared for this,” said Lisa Poppaw, one of four council members who voted against a one-year trial period for what are commonly called e-bikes.

“I've heard from citizens ever since I got on council that people are reckless on the trails, are going too fast. This is adding one more complication to the mix. We're not prepared for what is on the trail now.”

At the request of some residents and council, city staff in June began looking into whether to allow electric-assist bicycles on paved trails in Fort Collins. After months of study, staff suggested allowing e-bikes that weigh less than 75 pounds and have a maximum speed of 20 mph on the paved trails for one year and see how it goes.

Residents from both sides of the issue argued to the council Tuesday night.

Some say e-bikes allow riders to speed through the trails, causing more problems on already crowded paths and would prompt residents to stop using the trails.

Others say e-bikes allow older people to exercise and are great alternative means of transportation.

“The issue here is not with e-bikes per se but conflicts with riders, walkers and others on the trail,” said Councilman Wade Troxell, one of two council members who voted in favor of e-bikes.

“It's the rider not the bike.”
 
Another report:
http://www.reporterherald.com/news/larimer-county/ci_19349084
Fort Collins council kills electric bike proposal

By Pamela Dickman
Posted: 11/16/2011 01:29:51 PM MST

FORT COLLINS — An effort to allow electric-assist bicycles on paved trails sputtered and died with the Fort Collins city council Tuesday.

“We're not prepared for this,” said Lisa Poppaw, one of four council members who voted against a one-year trial period for what are commonly called e-bikes.

“I've heard from citizens ever since I got on council that people are reckless on the trails, are going too fast. This is adding one more complication to the mix. We're not prepared for what is on the trail now.”

At the request of some residents and council, city staff in June began looking into whether to allow electric-assist bicycles on paved trails in Fort Collins. After months of study, staff suggested allowing e-bikes that weigh less than 75 pounds and have a maximum speed of 20 mph on the paved trails for one year and see how it goes.

Residents from both sides of the issue argued to the council Tuesday night.

Some say e-bikes allow riders to speed through the trails, causing more problems on already crowded paths and would prompt residents to stop using the trails.

Others say e-bikes allow older people to exercise and are great alternative means of transportation.

“The issue here is not with e-bikes per se but conflicts with riders, walkers and others on the trail,” said Councilman Wade Troxell, one of two council members who voted in favor of e-bikes.

“It's the rider not the bike.”
 
Thanks for all the info Lock. I think we should all pay attention, because some of these "attitudes" travel to other areas.

I agree it's the rider that makes a difference, be it a regular bike or an ebike. I've always felt it was much easier to obey laws (such as stopping at stop signs and red lights) and to be courteous (slow down for pedestrians and dogs, etc.) on an ebike since it is so easy to accelerate up to speed afterwards.

In reading through the various comments it also seems people are striking out against bicycles in general since they often whiz along at higher speeds, even when congestion and path design doesn't warrant it. Being against the electric assist bicycle is a step in the direction of getting rid of all bikes on "their" trail.

Good luck to those of you in Colorado fighting with City Hall.
 
No law would stop me from riding anyways, that's the advantage of stealth and not being a dick. I've ridden next to several other riders and never once has someone figured out either of my bikes were electric when riding on the paved trails. The biggest problem we have on our trails here is people walking 2-3 abreast, on the wrong side and unleashed dogs, basically just being inconsiderate assholes.

As the councilman said, it's the person, not the bike.

Once had a an old man with unleashed dogs yell at me for going to fast on his walking path (which is marked as a bike trail with a dividing line). Nailed the brakes went right back to him and asked what the speed limit was, he said "you were going too fast" I said what is the limit?. Then told him I was going 20mph, much slower than most bikers on the trail and his dogs were unleashed and that's against the law. He said they are leashed, but he wasn't holding them, I told him you need to have your animals leashed and in your control at all times. I then stated that I slow down when I'm around people and in general how fast I ride my bicycle is not his concern but that I try to be courteous when riding. It wasn't a heated discussion, but I was irked since this was the second time he said something to me which caused the confrontation. I think once I got up to him and he could see through my full face carbon fiber helmet I wasn't a kid he realized he was biting of a bit more than he could chew :)
 
Sometimes you do have to stand up and debate with these folks that thinky they own the trails. One fine morning I had a group of about 20 military types jogging down the trail telling me to get off. That I didn't belong, and the trail was not for bikes. I knew they weren't local and had no idea of the trail use rules. It it took some nerve to tell 20 or so 250 pound firemen, or whatever they were to stuff it.

In another case, a guy at least 70 years old kept getting off the trail, like 15 feet off the trail when he'd see me coming. I stopped and chatted with him. Turns out 3 times now he's been hit by bikes hauling ass in a tuck, not looking. I told him he'd know me by sight by now, and I promised to never hit him. I pointed out that I had a motor, and rode sitting straight up and looking where I was going. He doesn't hide from me anymore, and I pay him the courtesy of never passing him faster than 5 mph. Everybody else gets passed at 20.

So it works both ways, sometimes you apologise and try to make up for how other riders screwed up, other times you risk getting stomped by a pack of aggro joggers for standing your ground.
 
dogman said:
In another case, a guy at least 70 years old kept getting off the trail, like 15 feet off the trail when he'd see me coming. I stopped and chatted with him. Turns out 3 times now he's been hit by bikes hauling ass in a tuck, not looking. I told him he'd know me by sight by now, and I promised to never hit him. I pointed out that I had a motor, and rode sitting straight up and looking where I was going. He doesn't hide from me anymore, and I pay him the courtesy of never passing him faster than 5 mph. Everybody else gets passed at 20.

I actually got run off the trail by a group of roadies riding side by side not paying attention heading towards me. Good thing I'm full suspension and just went through the grass, would have absolutely destroyed his $XXXX all carbon bicycle and I would have picked up mine with a new scratch or some cheap damaged part, laughed and rode off (maybe after an altercation).

Good news is he yelled sorry when he realized he messed up, must have scared the crap out of him, he just made a mistake.
 
http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20111117/UPDATES01/111117016
Small Planet E Vehicles to close over Council's decision
2:19 PM, Nov. 17, 2011

Written by David Young

The City Council’s decision Tuesday to uphold the ban of electric-assist bicycles on paved recreational trails is already having economic consequences.

Small Planet E Vehicles is closing its e-bike shop at 244 N. College Ave. in response to the council’s decision.

Tom Wilson, owner Small Planet E Vehicles, said he has spent the past year attempting to educate the city about the advantages of e-bikes and how progressive cities across the world are adopting them as alternative modes of transportation.

“I think this decision is going to affect business. I’m sure it is or I would not be making this decision,” said Wilson who attended Tuesday’s meeting confident that the council would permit e-bikes on recrea-tional trails.

“I think it will have a negative impact because a lot of people buy electric bikes to use as commuter (vehicles) to go from point A to point B and they use the trails in a lot of instances.”

Wilson, who has another Small Planet E Vehicles in Longmont, said that he does not have a firm closing date yet and intends to remain open through the holidays.

In the year and a half that the shop has been in business e-bikes were not permitted on recreation trail and Wilson said their business was good. However, with the council’s decision this week Wilson said he sees no place for his store in Fort Collins. He would like to open a shop in Denver.

Councilman Ben Manvel voted against the use of e-bikes on recreational trails based on concern that the trails are already congested combined with hearing from trail users that they did not want them on the trail.

A cyclist himself, Manvel said he was disappointed to hear that Small Planet E Vehicles would be closing and said he is willing to revisit the decision once a more in-depth study of the trail system in Fort Collins is completed.

“I think that basically what I heard in talking with people on the trail is I think we have a problem with interaction of people on the trail, and adding e-bikes is adding to a problem we need to address first,” said Manvel, who made it clear he is not anti-e-bike.

In turn, Manvel said the e-bikes should be limited to streets and bike lanes as a result of their size and speed capabilities.

Interesting [C]omment added:
Scott Groen
Fort Collins, Colorado

I watched this with great interest on CH.14 streaming on the internet. What The article SHOULD have said is that Ben spoke with pedestrians on the trails. I think the pedestrians want the paths solely for their purposes as much as the bike riders want them. The part I have to disagree with, as stated by Ben, is that we do NOT have a "good" bike lane system in town yet. There is virtually NO east- west corridor (without substantive detours) in Fort Collins. North south movement is better, but STILL not good for bike lanes on the roads. The bike paths are good, but again, limited in locations.

As disabled persons are still going to have the RIGHT to use the e-bikes, I failed to see why we would deny everyone, but I am not a city council member. I WOULD like a count of pedestrians on the river trail vs. Spring Creek or any of the others.

12 hours ago
 
And the news spreads to Denver via AP:
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnewsold/ci_19355956
Fort Collins keeps limits on electric bicycles
Posted: 11/17/2011 08:22:41 AM MST
Updated: 11/17/2011 08:31:56 AM MST
The Associated Press

FORT COLLINS, Colo.—The Fort Collins City Council will keep restrictions barring electric bicycles from trails over safety concerns.
Supporters asked the council on Tuesday to allow use of the bicycles on paved trails for a one-year trial.

According to the Fort Collins Coloradoan (http://noconow.co/sm20Mz), council members say electric bikes are legitimate forms of transportation, but they should be limited to streets and bike lanes.
———
Information from: Fort Collins Coloradoan, http://www.coloradoan.com

Two comments (from the same person) so far:
There is a movement afoot to allow all sorts of motorized vehicles, including golf carts, on bike trails, supposedly to allow better access for the handicapped. If this is carried out, the trails will soon be clogged with motorbikes, scooters, and golf carts, and soon we will all be handicapped.
John T
8:58 AM on Thursday Nov 17

**********************************************

This is as it should be. The trails and sidewalks are for human powered transportation.
John T
8:53 AM on Thursday Nov 17
 
Yesterday, I watched an suv go 40mph through a stop sign on Congress, a block from where a bike cop stopped me for yielding at 8mph last month. A few days ago a car blew a stop sign at 25mph from behind me while I was stopping. Good thing the road was wide enough that I wasn't taking the lane. I was able to catch both girls driving and tell them how they could have killed someone. A few minutes ago, almost went headon with two foriegn cyclists on a bike path across S 1st bridge. They were on the wrong side of the path, on a curve.


You know, in Boston there is a great bikeway that has a separate walking section 15 feet to the side, with signs clearly marking who goes where.

Most City gov'ts rather put a 20mph ebiker in the path of a speeding, texting, reckless driver piloting a 3000+lb vehicle. That's the bottom line. Eff'n BULLSHIT.

AS ALWAYS - the most logical, efficient, law abiding, environmentally concious mode of travel GETS SHITTED ON. I'm so sick of this.
 
Email Fort Collins CIty Council members who oppose ebikes on trails:

http://www.fcgov.com/council/lpoppaw.php


Ask them when they will provide a safe route for ebikers, seeing as normal cyclists and pedestrians have an option to the deadly streets filled with drunk, texting, inattentive, careless drivers going high speeds in mutli ton vehicles.
 
From Windsor, Ontario, this news report, an example of how this cancer spreads via city staffers:
CITY EYES E-BIKE REGS
2011-11-17 06:24:39
With their numbers growing, the City of Windsor is being asked to regulate e-bikes. Ward 6 councillor Joanne Gignac says a new bylaw is needed to improve public safety. City administration is checking to see what other cities have done and a report is expected at city council within a couple of weeks.

LocK
 
http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20111118/BUSINESS/111180343/E-bike-trail-ban-sends-store-packing
http://www.smallplanetevehicles.com/goog-bike-map

The City Council's decision Tuesday to uphold the ban of electric-assist bicycles on paved recreational trails is having economic consequences.

Small Planet E Vehicles is closing its e-bike shop at 244 N. College Ave. in response to the council's decision.

Tom Wilson, owner of Small Planet E Vehicles, said he has spent the past year attempting to educate the city about the advantages of e-bikes and how progressive cities across the world are adopting them as alternative modes of transportation.

"I think this decision is going to affect business. I'm sure it is or I would not be making this decision," said Wilson who attended Tuesday's meeting confident that the council would permit e-bikes on recreational trails.

"I think it will have a negative impact because a lot of people buy electric bikes to use as commuter (vehicles) to go from point A to point B, and they use the trails in a lot of instances."

Wilson, who has another Small Planet E Vehicles in Longmont, said he does not have a firm closing date yet and intends to remain open through the holidays.

In the year and a half that the shop has been in business, e-bikes have not been permitted on recreation trails, and Wilson said their business was good. However, with the council's decision this week, he said he sees no place for his store in Fort Collins. He would like to open another shop in Denver.

Councilman Ben Manvel voted against the use of e-bikes on recreational trails based on concerns the trails are already congested and comments from trail users who did not want the e-bikes on the trails.

A cyclist himself, Manvel said he was disappointed to hear that Small Planet E Vehicles would be closing and said he is open to revisiting the decision once a more in-depth study of the trail system in Fort Collins is completed.

"I think that basically what I heard in talking with people on the trail is I think we have a problem with interaction of people on the trail, and adding

e-bikes is adding to a problem we need to address first," said Manvel, who made it clear he is not anti-e-bike.

In turn, Manvel said the e-bikes should be limited to streets and bike lanes as a result of their size and speed capabilities.

The council voted 4-2 against the proposal that would have allowed electric-assist bicycles and "kick" trailers that provide a boost to bikes.

The bikes would have been limited to 75 pounds and a top speed of 20 mph.

City staff members had proposed a one-year trial period for the devices to measure their impacts on the trails and other users.

Marty Heffernan, director of culture, parks, recreation and environment for the city, said the e-bike store opened in Fort Collins aware of the ban already in place.

The proposed trail period would have run from April 2012 to March 2013 and would have permitted traditional e-bikes on the trail system.
 
Ridiculous! In that case all bikes should be prohibited from the trails. I'm sure glad I don't have any pedalists making rules for me.
 
In many park areas that have bike paths/trails, they have enough room to make a pedestrian trail and also a paved bike trail alongside it. In areas where they don't want to pave, they should make the dirt trail wider where feasible to reduce the number of bike/pedestrian conflicts.

But really, pedestrians and bikes don't belong in the same space, just like pedal bikes and cars on a fast road. They 'can' share, but it sucks and really needs to be separate is possible, if there is enough volume to warrant it.
 
http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20111129/OPINION04/111290314
E-bikes deserve equal access
12:25 AM, Nov. 29, 2011

As a lifelong cyclist, I moved to the Front Range for retirement, in part, because of nearby access to exceptional outdoor scenic venues and Fort Collins' reputation as a bicycle-friendly city. I have been active in the local Bicycle and Pedestrian Education Coalition (BPEC), and the Fort Collins Cycling Club, of which I am a past president. I have always been an active supporter of public safety, safe cycling, and alternative forms of transportation for health and environmental benefits.

Two-and-a-half years ago, I became an early adopter of an electric pedal-assisted bicycle (e-bike) to extend my range through our city and help me climb the local hogbacks. I have been responsibly riding city streets, multi-use trails and county roads ever since, without incident. E-bikes are an environmentally responsible transportation wave of the future - not the problem. We are merely behind Europe and Asia in their acceptance.

I agree with Mayor Karen Weitkunat that our city trails are intended for multiple uses, including recreation and transportation. To say that I am frustrated and displeased that our City Council banned e-bikes on paved recreational trails in Fort Collins is an understatement.

Good public policy is never based on fear and concerns about what could potentially happen. Denying access to public resources to an entire group of citizens because of the unsubstantiated fears of some is not progressive, forward-looking policy; it's not the American Way. If the problem is speed or insensitivity of some to the rights of others, retractable leash dog-walkers, runners, side-by-side baby stroller pushers and standard cyclists are not without fault on our trails in this regard. We cannot encourage everyone to get along and respect others' rights by prohibiting some.

A discriminatory e-bike policy is an ugly smudge on Fort Collins' reputation as a "bicycle-friendly city." This is not what democracy looks like.

E-bikes should be part of the mix - not arbitrarily excluded without cause.

Harry Strharsky lives in Fort Collins.
 
Freaking knee jerk reaction to whiners! How many actual collisions with injury with ebikes were documented? Vs documented regular bike incidents?

Suppose you do have a bad apple out there on an ebike? Should be easy to spot him and ambush him with a cop. He'll be the one blowing the stop signs and riding an illegally fast bike. A reasonable law enforcement effort would easily solve the problem if some jackass is actually that dangerous.

What's next? A bannana prohibition in city limits because somebody could perhaps drop a peel on the sidewalk?

For the hundredth time, thank god I live in New Mexico. But don't go moving here and making it into AZ or CA!
 
Maybe there is hope yet... this [C]omment to that recent letter in the Coloradoan:
Eric Sutherland

2nd reading of the ebike ordinance will happen on December 6th at City Hall.

This is kind of interesting. On 1st reading, Council passed an amended version of the proposed ordinance. They took out the trial period for ebikes and left in the ADA language. This means the ordinance will now go to 2nd reading and will probably be scheduled as a discussion item.

The intent of Horak, Ohlosn, Poppaw and Manvel was to kill the ebike trial provision. But Horak used a parlianmentary move that furthered consideration of the ordinance another 3 weeks. Rather than just voting down the item, Council voted to amend and then passed the ordinance.

As the Deputy City attorney was explaining at the time, this was probably not the best way to fulfill the majority's intent. The ADA language that remains in the ordinance is superfluous to existing law.

One has to laugh. When the city attorney gets something right, council ignores the suggestion. Yet, when the city attorney completely, errantly twists the law for CYA purposes, Council tiptoes right in step. This also happened at the last meeting. I borught to Clouncil's attention that Art. 5 -Sect. 15 (upheld by the voters in 1991) prohibits appropriations to trade groups and other organizations outside the control of the city. The city attorney's office responded by saying that there is case law that might provide a defense in the event that the City were ever sued for violating it's own Charter. Note, there was no disagreement that Council and the City Manager have been breaking the law for decades, only that there was a slim chance that the City could prevail in court if someone called them on it.

This is the way your city government is working.

If this Council had been seated when automobiles first hit Fort Collins, they would not have been able to craft regulations for them either.

29 November at 11:11
 
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 167, 2011, AMENDING CHAPTER 23, ARTICLES IX AND X OF THE CITY CODE TO UPDATE LANGUAGE RELATED TO THE USE OF MOTORIZED DEVICES ON CITY TRAILS BY PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
view PDF (264 KB):
http://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=conv...&doc_download_date=DEC-06-2011&ITEM_NUMBER=36

Still waiting for word on this but, yeah, basically City Council gutted what started out as a trial period for ebikes turning it into just a redundant recognition of the ADA.

sigh

L0cK
 
OK, It's on the agenda for tomorrow night - Dec 20th. For those interested, here's the URL for the City council agenda. See the summary agenda and item 27 which contains the main and alternate wording for the ordinance.

I'd like to present at the agenda tomorrow, but one thing I haven't been able to find yet is the US federal definition of an ebike. (Sorry, did not get any good content on my forum search). I believe it is similar to what the city council is using, but also states that such a (e-) bike is considered a bicycle. Can anyone give me a link or information?

I'm considering a short presentation asking for clarification on enforcement - e.g. can an ebike operate as an unpowered bicycle on the trails? If not, why not, since it is now effectively a bike? If so, how would you enforce the ordinance?

If any other locals want to sway me, please do so ASAP
 
chrisvw said:
I'd like to present at the agenda tomorrow, but one thing I haven't been able to find yet is the US federal definition of an ebike. (Sorry, did not get any good content on my forum search). I believe it is similar to what the city council is using, but also states that such a (e-) bike is considered a bicycle. Can anyone give me a link or information?
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/15/47/2085
15 U.S.C. § 2085 : US Code - Section 2085: Low-speed electric bicycles

(a) Construction
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, low-speed electric
bicycles are consumer products within the meaning of section
2052(a)(1) of this title and shall be subject to the Commission
regulations published at section 1500.18(a)(12) and part 1512 of
title 16, Code of Federal Regulations.
(b) Definition
For the purpose of this section, the term "low-speed electric
bicycle" means a two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable
pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.), whose
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.
(c) Promulgation of requirements
To further protect the safety of consumers who ride low-speed
electric bicycles, the Commission may promulgate new or amended
requirements applicable to such vehicles as necessary and
appropriate.
(d) Preemption
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 than the Federal law or
requirements referred to in subsection (a) of this section.

http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/frnotices/fr03/low.html
[Federal Register: February 12, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 29)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 7072-7073]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12fe03-3]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


16 CFR Part 1512



Requirements for Low-Speed Electric Bicycles


AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.


ACTION: Final rule.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


SUMMARY: Public Law 107-319, 116 Stat. 2776 (the Act), enacted December
4, 2002, subjects low-speed electric bicycles to the Commission's
existing regulations at 16 CFR part 1512 and 16 CFR 1500.18(a)(12) for
bicycles that are solely human powered. For purposes of this
requirement, the Act defines a low-speed electric bicycle as ``a two-or
three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor
of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.), whose 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.'' Public Law No.
107-319, section 1, 116 Stat. 2776 (2002). The Commission is issuing
this immediately effective amendment to its requirements for bicycles
at 16 CFR part 1512 to promptly inform the public of the newly enacted
statutory requirement on low-speed electric bicycles.


DATES: This amendment is effective upon publication in the Federal
Register, that is, on February 12, 2003.


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lowell Martin, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC
20207; telephone (301) 504-7628; e-mail lmartin@cpsc.gov.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Law 107-319 (the Act), enacted
December 4, 2002, amends the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15
U.S.C. 2051, et seq., by adding a new


[[Page 7073]]


section 38 establishing requirements for low speed electric bicycles.
Specifically, section 1 of the Act makes low-speed electric
bicycles subject to the Commission's existing regulations on bicycles.


(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, low-speed
electric bicycles are consumer products within the meaning of
section 3(a)(1)[of the CPSA] and shall be subject to the Commission
regulations published at Sec. 1500.18(a)(12) and part 1512 of title
16, Code of Federal Regulations.


Public Law 107-319, section 1, 116 Stat. 2776.
The Act defines the term ``low-speed electric bicycle'' as follows:


(b) for purposes of this section, the term ``low-speed electric
bicycle'' means a two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable
pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.), whose
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.


Id.
The Commission's regulation at 16 CFR 1500.18(a)(12) makes the
determination that bicycles that do not comply with the requirements of
16 CFR part 1512 present a mechanical hazard within the meaning of
section 2(s) of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA). 15 U.S.C.
1261(s). The effect of this determination is that noncomplying bicycles
are ``hazardous substances'' for purposes of section 2(f)(1)(D) of the
FHSA, and are also ``banned hazardous substances'' pursuant to section
2(q)(1)(A) of the FHSA. 15 U.S.C. 1261(f)(1)(D), 1261(q)(1)(A). See
also, Forester v. Consumer Product Safety Com'n, 559 F.2d 774, 783-786
(D.C. Cir. 1977).
The amendment to Sec. 1512.2 of 16 CFR part 1512 promulgated today
incorporates the Act's definition of ``low-speed electric bicycle,''
thereby helping to inform the public of the statutory application of
part 1512 to low-speed electric bicycles.
Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
authorizes an agency to dispense with certain notice procedures for a
rule when it finds ``good cause'' to do so. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).
Specifically, under section 553(b)(3)(B), the requirement for notice
and an opportunity to comment does not apply when the agency, for good
cause, finds that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest.'' The requirement reflected in this
amendment is imposed by the Act and is not discretionary with the
Commission. Accordingly, the Commission hereby finds that notice and an
opportunity for comment on this amendment are unnecessary.
Section 553(d)(3) of the APA authorizes an agency, ``for good cause
found and published with the rule,'' to dispense with the otherwise
applicable requirement that a rule be published in the Federal Register
at least 30 days before its effective date. The Commission hereby finds
that the 30 day delay in effective date is unnecessary because the
requirement reflected in the amendment was imposed by the Act and is
not discretionary with the Commission.
Because this amendment incorporates a requirement mandated by
statute that is not discretionary with the Commission, and thus is not
subject to notice and comment, this rule is not subject to the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. Because this
amendment incorporates a statutory requirement not subject to agency
discretion, it is not an agency action subject to the National
Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.
Pursuant to Executive Order No. 12988, the Commission states the
preemptive effect of this regulation as follows. Section 1 of the Act
provides that its requirements ``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)[the Commission's
regulations on bicycles at 16 CFR part 1512].'' Public Law No. 107-319,
section 1, 116 Stat. 2776.


List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1512


Consumer protection, Hazardous substances, Imports, Infants and
children, Labeling, Law enforcement, and Toys.


For the foregoing reasons, the Commission amends Title 16 of the
Code of Federal Regulation to read as follows:


PART 1512--REQUIREMENTS FOR BICYCLES


1. The authority citation for Part 1512 is revised to read as
follows:


Authority: Secs. 2(f)(1)(D), (q)(1)(A), (s), 3(e)(1), 74 Stat.
372, 374, 375, as amended, 80 Stat. 1304-05, 83 Stat. 187-89 (15
U.S.C. 1261, 1262); Pub. L. 107-319, 116 Stat. 2776.




Sec. 1512.2. [Amended]


2. Amend Sec. 1512.2, to revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
(a) Bicycle means:
(1) A two-wheeled vehicle having a rear drive wheel that is solely
human-powered;
(2) A two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and
an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.), whose 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.


Dated: February 6, 2003.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 03-3423 Filed 2-11-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title16-vol2/xml/CFR-2011-title16-vol2-part1512.xml
Code of Federal Regulations
Title 16 - Commercial PracticesVolume: 2
Date: 2011-01-01
Original Date: 2011-01-01
Title: PART 1512 - REQUIREMENTS FOR BICYCLES
Context: Title 16 - Commercial Practices. CHAPTER II - CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION. SUBCHAPTER C - FEDERAL HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ACT REGULATIONS.

Full part 1512 in the link...

l0Ck
 
Back
Top