I’m releasing this statement to inform the media, industry and consumers that I have filed a “petition for preemption” with the CPSC regarding the “3-Class” E-Bike state legislation. If the petition is determined to have legal merit by CPSC General Counsel, the 3-Class legislation adopted by 26 states will likely have no legal standing. This will result in reactionary required legislative corrections, but all currently compliant ebikes will continue to be regulatory and use compliant so the impact to the industry and consumers will be negligible.
The motivations were:
Following is the document content of the petition for preemption submitted to the CPSC. I encourage anyone interested or concerned to read it and form their own opinion.
Petition for Rulemaking Decision
Specific Product
Low Speed Electric Bicycle (LSEB) as defined by HR727 Public Law 107-319 2002 and safety regulated by part 1512 of title 16, Code of Federal Regulations.
Request to Issue Preemption Rulemaking Decision on State 3-Class Ebike Legislation
CPSC rule making decision request to preempt legal standing of 3-class state ebike legislation given the interstate commerce impact(s) resulting from more stringent requirements than the CPSC federal definition and safety requirements. Expressed preemption and supportive precedence exists on this requested rulemaking decision.
Per policy and history the CPSC is mandated to preempt the 3-class ebike legislation adopted by some states because the state legislation is more stringent than the federal Low Speed Electric Bicycle definition and addresses no additional safety requirements or concerns. This state legislation unquestionably requires a more stringent ebike configuration(s) prior to the time the product enters interstate commerce (all 3-classes are more stringent). Some CPSC compliant LSEBs are not compliant to the 3-class state legislation which was not addressed by the adopting states because they believed the legislation was consistent with federal definition.
Given that the 3 classes are more stringent they fall within the federal definition so preemption has no commerce impact and the states that have adopted this legislation can simply return to “use” regulation of 1st sale compliant LSEBs defined, safety regulated, and approved by the CPSC. 3-class ebikes can continue to sold on a voluntary basis but state “use” regulations simply need to provide for CPSC compliant LSEBs as bikes (defined as a bike in the statute so use regulations are well established in every state). A state AG published statements supports this conclusion. The only impact will be to local “use” regulations where some trails have access defined per 3-class definitions and not CPSC LSEB compliance (Federal DOI order 3376 was intended to correct this already by allowing access to all compliant LSEBs & classes).
Details of CPSC LSEB Federal Statute & State ebike 3-Class Legislation Details
Consumer Product Safety Act HR727 2002 provided that low-speed electric bicycles are consumer products. In this law is a seldom used expressed / explicit preemption statement:
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).
Per CPSC Federal Law 16 C.F.R. Part 1512, 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.
Note: Per CPSC documented clarification, this definition limits dynamic power that a LSEB drive system (motor alone) can provide. Dynamic power at & above 20mph is limited per the 170b nominal rider weight and level surface constraints. However, it does not establish / define a maximum assisted speed for when an LSEB is being powered by a combination of human and motor power. Any speed achieved above 20mph is the result of the rider adding to the governed motor power limit. The constrained power limit above 20mph effectively limits maximum speed via rider physical limits to ensure traditional maximum riding speeds are only moderately changed (going down a hill remains the primary top speed factor).
Per 3-class state law where adopted (copied from People for Bikes Website who drafted the legislation), an “Electric bicycle” shall mean a bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals, a saddle or seat for the rider, and an electric motor of less than 750 watts that meets the requirements of one of the following three classes:
(a) “Class 1 electric bicycle” shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.
(b) “Class 2 electric bicycle” shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle, and that is not capable of providing assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.
(c) “Class 3 electric bicycle” shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour.
Note: All adopting states have a class specific label requirement, some require electric cut-off brakes, and some adopted a requirement for a speedometer on Class 3 electric bicycles (all required on the ebike prior to entry into interstate commerce). These are examples of more stringent requirements than CPSC LSEB definition and/or safety regulation requirements.
Note: The 3-class legislation also states that a seat or saddle is required which is not mentioned in the LSEB definition or in CPSC Federal Law 16 C.F.R. Part 1512. There are elliptical bikes and other configurations that don’t have conventional seats/saddles but are considered compliant to the federal law. Most of the biggest brands selling pedelec e in the US do not have brakes that cut motor power (ebrakes) when a brake is applied which is required by some of the adopting 3-class legislation states (examples include California, Colorado, and Minnisota). CPSC does not require ebrakes so they are LSEB compliant but in reality are not legal for use if the 3-class legislation was enforced by the states.
Per a casual review, 3-class policy may seem consistent with the federal definition because all 3 classes are compliant with the federal definition but the 3-class legislation requires class specific microprocessor controller programming for the cease of assist function, class specific labeling, and a speedometer on class 3 ebikes. Each of these has the effect of setting a more stringent requirement which must be met at the time LSEBs enter interstate commerce that is not required by the CPSC. Clearly this is state legislative over-reach given CPSC’s regulatory authority for 1st sale. In the federal statute there is no speed-based cease of assist required (maximum speed is regulated via a power limit constraint at 20mph which is intuitively more safe), no class specific labeling, or speedometer requirement. Effectively, the adopting states are using an altered and subdivided federal law definition as an element of state “use” regulation of LSEBs. No new safety elements are addressed in 3-class legislation and the regulations are NOT identical or less stringent as required by CPSC policy.
Since the Class 3 definition does not limit motor power above 20mph it is reasonable to conclude that the 3-class legislation is less safe overall vs the federal definition. In fact, as written the “motor alone” power provided above 20mph would sustain a speed faster than 20mph which is not compliant to LSEB definition. Assist cut-offs required in the 3-class legislation, regardless of what the speed it occurs, can also impact safety as the force a rider experiences at the cranks jumps dramatically which can cause foot slips.
Legal Argument Note: Obviously Class 1 and 2 define a LSEB / ebike configuration more stringent than Class 3 - a slower assist cut-off speed. The CPSC has stated that Class 3 ebikes are compliant to the federal definition. True, but the class 3 definition is more stringent given the CPSC LSEB definition does not specify a cut-off speed requirement while being less stringent on dynamic power above 20mph. Therefore, Class 1 and 2 are unquestionably more stringent than required by the federal definition. This is not ambiguous and can not be just passed over as lacking merit by the CPSC counsel. Preemption of the state legislation does not impact LSEB compliance - all compliant LSEBs including models produced to the 3-class specifications remain compliant (brands can continue to voluntarily comply with 3-class if desired but it should not determine compliance for sale or use). Note: dynamic power above 20mph may need to be addressed on some Class 3 ebikes as they could exceed the federal LSEB limit.
To my knowledge there was no petition or advisory position request made by any state prior to adopting 3-Class legislation even though it has the effect of setting multiple requirements which a bicycle must meet at the time it enters interstate commerce that are not CPSC requirements. Objectively, this situation demands a preemptive rulemaking decision and a formal position statement by the Commission.
Clear Precedence Exists in Earlier Bike Regulatory Decision
Interestingly, Commission precedence is clearly implied on a decision where preemption was actually not exercised when an advisory opinion was requested in mid-1978 on state(s) requiring bicycle lighting when riding at night…
Per CPSC records….
“Our [September 12] opinion should have included some additional discussion about the preemption question that your letter raised. The requirement you described, for lighting on bicycles ridden at night, is clearly one which defines how a consumer must use a bicycle. In contrast, the Commission's regulation sets requirements which a bicycle must meet when introduced into interstate commerce. Because the Commission's regulation does not define how a consumer may or may not use a bicycle, the Commission believes that the Federal Hazardous Substances Act does not prohibit states or localities from issuing or enforcing a requirement that lighting be used on bicycles ridden at night. Please note that this advice concerning a "use" requirement is based on an assumption. For the purpose of answering your question, we have assumed that the state or local requirement would not have the effect of setting any requirement which a bicycle must meet at the time it enters interstate commerce.”
Clearly implied is that preemption would have been exercised if the states required lighting at the time a bike enters interstate commerce. States are claiming the 3-class law is “use” only legislation but it requires the class programming, labeling, and speedometer to be implemented at the time the ebike enters interstate commerce. Preemption exists where a federal law expressly states it preempts state law as HR727 explicitly does state. Unquestionably, precedence exists to justify preemption.
Additional Support Information for Preemption Decision
I believe each of these itemized details alone is justification for a preemption decision, thus in total the legal basis is very robust (states will not challenge a preemption decision). I’ve detailed these to help with preemption justification.
Supplemental Information
Given the environmental and health benefits that increased LSEB usage would provide to the country I think simple effective regulation of LSEBs should be considered very important. The best way to increase adoption is to have simple, safe, effective regulation at federal and state levels (the CPSC definition is actually technically very robust while not negatively impacting bicycle use safety). The original intent of HR727 giving jurisdiction of LSEB to the CPSC is/was clear - to have them compliance and “use” regulated as a bicycle (the Mississippi AG review of the statutes came to this conclusion and that’s the only formal state opinion I can find on this). Any historical assessment of the events behind the 3-class state legislation efforts proves it was not driven by a concern for safety - it was about US and EU market harmonization focused (the EU is now reviewing a 3rd round of ebike regulation changes so that is not something the CPSC should consider having merit). Interstate commerce benefited from one compliance definition for LSEBs and the intent to be “use” regulated as a “bicycle” - both consumers and manufacturers benefited. The safety outcome of the federal LSEB regulations is equivalent to other types of bicycles and states still have the full power to regulate bicycle usage but their efforts to legislate performance, labeling, and accessories like speedometers and seats should be preempted immediately before the market confusion just gets worse.
The motivations were:
- The opinion preemption was inevitable given the explicit/express preemption clause in HR727 - 3-Class was more stringent than the CPSC definition, it impacted interstate commerce & was simply not about improving safety (the primary motive was EU harmonization).
- The opinion that the intent of the CPSC definition was to ensure that a “low speed electric bicycle” is the equivalent of a bike for “use” by all states.
- Respect for what I felt was a technically astute and visionary federal CPSC definition that had the intent of maximizing the adoption potential for E-Bikes as an effective urban mobility solution.
Following is the document content of the petition for preemption submitted to the CPSC. I encourage anyone interested or concerned to read it and form their own opinion.
Petition for Rulemaking Decision
Specific Product
Low Speed Electric Bicycle (LSEB) as defined by HR727 Public Law 107-319 2002 and safety regulated by part 1512 of title 16, Code of Federal Regulations.
Request to Issue Preemption Rulemaking Decision on State 3-Class Ebike Legislation
CPSC rule making decision request to preempt legal standing of 3-class state ebike legislation given the interstate commerce impact(s) resulting from more stringent requirements than the CPSC federal definition and safety requirements. Expressed preemption and supportive precedence exists on this requested rulemaking decision.
Per policy and history the CPSC is mandated to preempt the 3-class ebike legislation adopted by some states because the state legislation is more stringent than the federal Low Speed Electric Bicycle definition and addresses no additional safety requirements or concerns. This state legislation unquestionably requires a more stringent ebike configuration(s) prior to the time the product enters interstate commerce (all 3-classes are more stringent). Some CPSC compliant LSEBs are not compliant to the 3-class state legislation which was not addressed by the adopting states because they believed the legislation was consistent with federal definition.
Given that the 3 classes are more stringent they fall within the federal definition so preemption has no commerce impact and the states that have adopted this legislation can simply return to “use” regulation of 1st sale compliant LSEBs defined, safety regulated, and approved by the CPSC. 3-class ebikes can continue to sold on a voluntary basis but state “use” regulations simply need to provide for CPSC compliant LSEBs as bikes (defined as a bike in the statute so use regulations are well established in every state). A state AG published statements supports this conclusion. The only impact will be to local “use” regulations where some trails have access defined per 3-class definitions and not CPSC LSEB compliance (Federal DOI order 3376 was intended to correct this already by allowing access to all compliant LSEBs & classes).
Details of CPSC LSEB Federal Statute & State ebike 3-Class Legislation Details
Consumer Product Safety Act HR727 2002 provided that low-speed electric bicycles are consumer products. In this law is a seldom used expressed / explicit preemption statement:
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).
Per CPSC Federal Law 16 C.F.R. Part 1512, 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.
Note: Per CPSC documented clarification, this definition limits dynamic power that a LSEB drive system (motor alone) can provide. Dynamic power at & above 20mph is limited per the 170b nominal rider weight and level surface constraints. However, it does not establish / define a maximum assisted speed for when an LSEB is being powered by a combination of human and motor power. Any speed achieved above 20mph is the result of the rider adding to the governed motor power limit. The constrained power limit above 20mph effectively limits maximum speed via rider physical limits to ensure traditional maximum riding speeds are only moderately changed (going down a hill remains the primary top speed factor).
Per 3-class state law where adopted (copied from People for Bikes Website who drafted the legislation), an “Electric bicycle” shall mean a bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals, a saddle or seat for the rider, and an electric motor of less than 750 watts that meets the requirements of one of the following three classes:
(a) “Class 1 electric bicycle” shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.
(b) “Class 2 electric bicycle” shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle, and that is not capable of providing assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.
(c) “Class 3 electric bicycle” shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour.
Note: All adopting states have a class specific label requirement, some require electric cut-off brakes, and some adopted a requirement for a speedometer on Class 3 electric bicycles (all required on the ebike prior to entry into interstate commerce). These are examples of more stringent requirements than CPSC LSEB definition and/or safety regulation requirements.
Note: The 3-class legislation also states that a seat or saddle is required which is not mentioned in the LSEB definition or in CPSC Federal Law 16 C.F.R. Part 1512. There are elliptical bikes and other configurations that don’t have conventional seats/saddles but are considered compliant to the federal law. Most of the biggest brands selling pedelec e in the US do not have brakes that cut motor power (ebrakes) when a brake is applied which is required by some of the adopting 3-class legislation states (examples include California, Colorado, and Minnisota). CPSC does not require ebrakes so they are LSEB compliant but in reality are not legal for use if the 3-class legislation was enforced by the states.
Per a casual review, 3-class policy may seem consistent with the federal definition because all 3 classes are compliant with the federal definition but the 3-class legislation requires class specific microprocessor controller programming for the cease of assist function, class specific labeling, and a speedometer on class 3 ebikes. Each of these has the effect of setting a more stringent requirement which must be met at the time LSEBs enter interstate commerce that is not required by the CPSC. Clearly this is state legislative over-reach given CPSC’s regulatory authority for 1st sale. In the federal statute there is no speed-based cease of assist required (maximum speed is regulated via a power limit constraint at 20mph which is intuitively more safe), no class specific labeling, or speedometer requirement. Effectively, the adopting states are using an altered and subdivided federal law definition as an element of state “use” regulation of LSEBs. No new safety elements are addressed in 3-class legislation and the regulations are NOT identical or less stringent as required by CPSC policy.
Since the Class 3 definition does not limit motor power above 20mph it is reasonable to conclude that the 3-class legislation is less safe overall vs the federal definition. In fact, as written the “motor alone” power provided above 20mph would sustain a speed faster than 20mph which is not compliant to LSEB definition. Assist cut-offs required in the 3-class legislation, regardless of what the speed it occurs, can also impact safety as the force a rider experiences at the cranks jumps dramatically which can cause foot slips.
Legal Argument Note: Obviously Class 1 and 2 define a LSEB / ebike configuration more stringent than Class 3 - a slower assist cut-off speed. The CPSC has stated that Class 3 ebikes are compliant to the federal definition. True, but the class 3 definition is more stringent given the CPSC LSEB definition does not specify a cut-off speed requirement while being less stringent on dynamic power above 20mph. Therefore, Class 1 and 2 are unquestionably more stringent than required by the federal definition. This is not ambiguous and can not be just passed over as lacking merit by the CPSC counsel. Preemption of the state legislation does not impact LSEB compliance - all compliant LSEBs including models produced to the 3-class specifications remain compliant (brands can continue to voluntarily comply with 3-class if desired but it should not determine compliance for sale or use). Note: dynamic power above 20mph may need to be addressed on some Class 3 ebikes as they could exceed the federal LSEB limit.
To my knowledge there was no petition or advisory position request made by any state prior to adopting 3-Class legislation even though it has the effect of setting multiple requirements which a bicycle must meet at the time it enters interstate commerce that are not CPSC requirements. Objectively, this situation demands a preemptive rulemaking decision and a formal position statement by the Commission.
Clear Precedence Exists in Earlier Bike Regulatory Decision
Interestingly, Commission precedence is clearly implied on a decision where preemption was actually not exercised when an advisory opinion was requested in mid-1978 on state(s) requiring bicycle lighting when riding at night…
Per CPSC records….
“Our [September 12] opinion should have included some additional discussion about the preemption question that your letter raised. The requirement you described, for lighting on bicycles ridden at night, is clearly one which defines how a consumer must use a bicycle. In contrast, the Commission's regulation sets requirements which a bicycle must meet when introduced into interstate commerce. Because the Commission's regulation does not define how a consumer may or may not use a bicycle, the Commission believes that the Federal Hazardous Substances Act does not prohibit states or localities from issuing or enforcing a requirement that lighting be used on bicycles ridden at night. Please note that this advice concerning a "use" requirement is based on an assumption. For the purpose of answering your question, we have assumed that the state or local requirement would not have the effect of setting any requirement which a bicycle must meet at the time it enters interstate commerce.”
Clearly implied is that preemption would have been exercised if the states required lighting at the time a bike enters interstate commerce. States are claiming the 3-class law is “use” only legislation but it requires the class programming, labeling, and speedometer to be implemented at the time the ebike enters interstate commerce. Preemption exists where a federal law expressly states it preempts state law as HR727 explicitly does state. Unquestionably, precedence exists to justify preemption.
Additional Support Information for Preemption Decision
I believe each of these itemized details alone is justification for a preemption decision, thus in total the legal basis is very robust (states will not challenge a preemption decision). I’ve detailed these to help with preemption justification.
- HR 727 defining “low speed electric bicycle” has an explicit preemption statement. The 3-class legislation is more stringent while lacking any evidence it provides a level of added safety. In addition, it clearly addresses the same safety issues (power rating & assist speed) that are addressed by the CPSC LSEB definition & safety regulations. For 12+ years most states adopted the CPSC definition or less stringent as a basis for LSEB “use” equivalent to a bicycle and many states still do.
- LSEBs that were compliant to CPSC definition and use were made illegal for use in states adopting the 3-class legislation. For example, the Polaris Diesel / PIM Archer has a throttle-assist drive system that provides CPSC compliant dynamic assist up to ~24mph but is no longer “use” compliant in any state that has adopted the 3-class legislation (throttle-assist LSEB must cease assist at 20mph). A CPSC compliant LSEB model (Izip Express) that was utilized by the Los Angeles police department is no longer “use” compliant in California or other 3-class states. Minnesota has banned use of Class 3 E-Bikes which are CPSC regulation compliant. Many other examples exist, yet the states consider 3-class legislation consistent with the CPSC definition/statute.
- This should be a legislative alarm - H.R. 1019 is drafted such that a tax credit is tied to 3-class state law but this law does not control what is a compliant bike to be sold in the 50 states.
- A bike advocacy organization, People for Bikes, was provided a lobby money budget to promote the 3-class legislation with a fairly obvious goal of US market harmonization with EU ebike regulations (i.e. promotion of the 3-class state legislation was not based on safety merit). This is documented in multiple YouTube videos and statements by People for Bikes representatives.
- My understanding is that no state or People for Bikes has petitioned the Commission for preemption exemption or even requested an advisory opinion as they feel the 3-class is both consistent with the federal statute and is “use” specific. This is clearly a legislative capture agenda driven largely by a few large industry manufacturers who would benefit (a complex technical subject of its own). CPSC’s granted preemptive power was intended to prevent this.
- The perception that the state 3-class legislation has legal standing is behind a new generation of E-Bikes that are state regulation compliant but provide more assist (power) above 20mph than the CPSC definition states (motor power alone limited to what can sustain a 170lb rider at 20mph). Note: there are some notable examples but I do not wish to judge this as acceptable practice or not in this petition request.
- Some ebikes, including examples from top brands, have ignored the speedometer requirement even in the states that have adopted 3-class legislation. Clear confusion on legal standing exists and preemption would address this.
- Many states still use the CPSC definition or less stringent regulation of ebike power and speed to “use” regulate LSEBs as bikes. In Mississippi, there is no clear designation for an electric bicycle as an attorney general opinion indicates that an electric bicycle would be considered a bicycle for use per statute review. While Kentucky also lacks a definition for e-bikes, the Department of Transportation passed an administrative regulation in 2015 that brought e-bikes within the scope of the state’s bicycle regulations. Every state usage law reviewed allows usage equality of Class 1 and 2. This is just a subset of the evidence that the state claims of 3-class legislation being necessary to clarify and improve “use” safety vs. the CPSC definition is not accurate. To my knowledge there has been no associated “use” safety issues documented by states using the CPSC federal LSEB definition or less stringent. I would also argue that the 3-class legislation has created significantly more confusion and worse it’s seemingly unenforceable.
- Congressional notes on HR727 indicate that the intent was for the definition of a “low speed electric bicycle” to be consistent with other bicycles. Also explicitly stated is that LSEB are not motor vehicles so state efforts to define as such by parsing motor assist performance into classes implies states legislatively insist they are motor vehicles. There is no evidence that states are addressing any tangible safety issues by not simply adopting the federal definition of a LSEBs as a bike (congressional notes indicate that was the intent of putting LSEBs under CPSC regulatory control).
- Consumer confusion exists because in nearly half the states the federal definition for LSEBs has been adopted and they are “use” regulated as bikes. Many ebikes that are CPSC compliant are being sold in states where, per the 3-class legislation, these CPSC compliant ebikes are not legal for use on any public infrastructure. The confusion caused by the regulatory overlap was created when 3-class legislation started being adopted by states. People for Bikes claims it provides legislative clarity which is simply not accurate.
- Per 3-class “model legislation” Class 3 ebikes are “use” allowed only on roads and roadside bike lanes. Interestingly this class can not have a throttle-assist system even though mopeds and motorcycles utilizing that same infrastructure are legally allowed to have throttles. This makes no common sense whatsoever and I would argue it actually puts consumers riding class 3 LSEBs at more risk. Class 3 designated solely as a harmonization placeholder to mimic EU speed pedelec ebikes.
- Per 3-class adopted state use regulations, I could not find a single example of Class 1 and 2 ebikes being “use” regulated differently. Pretty solid additional proof this legislation was about harmonization and not safety.
- The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) website they detail the 3-class legislation (the motor power and 3 class tiers) and follow that by stating “Any device outside of these definitions is not considered a low-speed electric bicycle that would be regulated as a bicycle.” This shows clear confusion on bike safety regulations - states only have the right to regulate how bikes are “used.” Again legislative capture is taking place.
- NY recently proposed (may have approved) legislation requiring class 3 ebikes to have a cease of assist at 25mph for legal use. The only way this is possible is for the manufacturers to produce a unique drive system program just for NY. This is a classic example of why CPSC was created to stop.
Supplemental Information
Given the environmental and health benefits that increased LSEB usage would provide to the country I think simple effective regulation of LSEBs should be considered very important. The best way to increase adoption is to have simple, safe, effective regulation at federal and state levels (the CPSC definition is actually technically very robust while not negatively impacting bicycle use safety). The original intent of HR727 giving jurisdiction of LSEB to the CPSC is/was clear - to have them compliance and “use” regulated as a bicycle (the Mississippi AG review of the statutes came to this conclusion and that’s the only formal state opinion I can find on this). Any historical assessment of the events behind the 3-class state legislation efforts proves it was not driven by a concern for safety - it was about US and EU market harmonization focused (the EU is now reviewing a 3rd round of ebike regulation changes so that is not something the CPSC should consider having merit). Interstate commerce benefited from one compliance definition for LSEBs and the intent to be “use” regulated as a “bicycle” - both consumers and manufacturers benefited. The safety outcome of the federal LSEB regulations is equivalent to other types of bicycles and states still have the full power to regulate bicycle usage but their efforts to legislate performance, labeling, and accessories like speedometers and seats should be preempted immediately before the market confusion just gets worse.
Last edited:
