Interpretation ID: 1982-1.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/02/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of Transportation; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 8, 1982, asking the current status of three-wheeled motor vehicles under the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

As you know from my letter of November 24, 1976, to HM Vehicles, a copy of which you enclosed, three-wheeled motor vehicles are classified as "motorcycles" under the standards. Obviously the configuration of a three-wheeled enclosed vehicle differs greatly from that of the two-wheeled machine that comes to mind when the word "motorcycle" is mentioned. As my 1976 letter indicates, the agency was seeking a more realistic regulatory scheme for three-wheeled vehicles, for obviously our motorcycle standards were written with two-wheeled vehicles in mind. But because three-wheeled vehicles did not comprise a significant part of the market, the agency decided that its priorities in motor vehicle safety lay elsewhere, and no change in the definition of "motorcycle" was ever adopted, and it still encompasses three-wheeled vehicles.

You have also asked whether a three-wheeled vehicle can be registered and inspected as a passenger car. Under the preemption provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)), Pennsylvania is bound to treat three-wheeled vehicles as "motorcycles" in those areas that are covered by Federal safety standards that apply to motorcycles. Further, it may apply its own motorcycle standards in areas not covered by Federal standards. This means, for example, that Pennsylvania could not require a three-wheeled vehicle to have two headlamps since one is adequate under our Safety Standard No. 108. On the other hand, Pennsylvania could require a backup lamp device since Standard No. 108 contains no such requirement for motorcycles. Thus, it would seem that Pennsylvania should register and inspect these vehicles as motorcycles to the extent possible.

As a final comment, we favor the use of discretionary enforcement when literal enforcement may create disrespect for the law. We note the comment written on the "Free-Way II" sheet: "must wear a helmet." Our standards do not cover the use of helmets or apparel of operators but we can understand why the driver of an enclosed three-wheeled vehicle might not understand a citation for failure to wear a helmet. On the other hand, such a requirement appears perfectly reasonable for the operator of an open three-wheeler.

SINCERELY,

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

March 8, 1982

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel NHTSA

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Attached is a letter from you to Mr. Edmonson, dated November 24, 1976, concerning a three-wheeled vehicle known as "Free-Way II". The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Vehicle Safety Division would like to know the current status of these types of vehicles in view of Federal regulations. If the vehicle is a motorcycle, can it be registered and inspected as a passenger car?

Please contact Kathy G. Phillips at (717) 787-2895 if you have any questions concerning this request. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in this matter.

John A. Pachuta Director

Bureau of Traffic Safety Operations

(Graphics omitted)

"FREE-WAY II" STANDARD FEATURES:

1. Automotive lighting system 2. "Non-rusting" fiberglass body 3. Standard automotive controls and instruments 4. Large storage area 5. Smooth automatic transmission 6. Mid-engine or mid-motor design, gas, diesel or electric powered 7. Bucket seat -- room for temporary tandem seat 8. Large convenient door 9. Front wheel steering system 10. 350 degree protective steel frame at bumper height 11. Hydraulic drum brakes on all wheels 12. "340" engine, electric start 13. Electric windshield wiper