Interpretation ID: 17491.ztv

Robert B. Nicholas, Esq.
McDermott, Will & Emery
600 13th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005-3096

Dear Mr. Nicholas:

This is in reply to your letter of March 6, 1998, asking for confirmation of your interpretation that an electric-powered scooter, manufactured by your client EMPower Corporation, is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6).

You have described the scooter as a three-wheeled vehicle with a maximum speed of 15 miles per hour. It has "a platform, no seat and is designed to be driven standing up. The scooter's steering mechanism, composed of handlebars, steering column, fork and wheel, is collapsible and folds toward the platform for easy storage and portability."

You have cited interpretations of the agency in which other, similar vehicles were held not to be "motor vehicles." These exempted vehicles feature lack of a seat and the ability to be folded to be portable (see letters of June 12, 1995, to Andrew Grubb, re "California Go-Ped," letter of October 5, 1993, to Bernhard Peer, re "TWIP" electric scooter; and letter of April 1, 1991, to Mark. A Pacheco re "Walk Machine").

We concur with your conclusion that these interpretations are relevant to the EMPower electric scooter, as you have described it, and that, accordingly, the EMPower electric scooter is not a "motor vehicle" under 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6).

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.5/22/98