[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 8, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1077-1086]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-386]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 96-65; Notice 2]
RIN 2127-AG58
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document initiates rulemaking based upon oral
presentations at the agency's public meetings and written comments
received on the appropriate classification and safety regulations for
golf carts and other small, light-weight vehicles that are capable of
being driven on the public roads. In response to these comments, NHTSA
proposes that a new category of motor vehicle be established, called
``low-speed vehicle.'' A low-speed vehicle (LSV) would be any motor
vehicle, other than a motorcycle, whose top speed does not exceed 25
mph. Under a proposed new standard, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 100, LSVs would be equipped with certain basic items of
motor vehicle safety equipment, such as seat belts, in lieu of
complying with the Federal motor vehicle safety and bumper standards
that would apply if the vehicles were categorized according to existing
vehicle types. LSVs would also have a label warning against driving
them at speeds that exceed 25 mph. A ``golf cart'', a vehicle that is
used to carry golfers on golf courses and that has a top speed of 15
mph or less, would not be considered a motor vehicle, consistent with
the agency's past interpretations. A ``golf car'', a vehicle that is
used to carry golfers on golf courses and that has a top speed that
exceeds 15 mph, but does not exceed 25 mph, would be a motor vehicle
and required to comply with Standard No. 100. This rulemaking action is
intended to supersede the agency's past interpretations excluding from
regulation motor vehicles with a distinctive configuration and a top
speed of not more than 20 mph, and to bring all such vehicles under the
statutory requirements to notify and remedy safety related defects, and
when effective, noncompliances with Standard No. 100.
DATES: Comments are due February 24, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to Docket No. 96-65; Notice 2, and be
submitted to Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Room 5109, 400 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Z. Taylor Vinson, Office of Chief
Counsel, NHTSA, Room 5219, 400 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590
(telephone 202-366-5263).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
In order to afford the reader a full understanding of the agency's
tentative decision, this notice will repeat, rather than refer the
reader to, much of the discussion that appeared in Notice 1, published
at 61 FR 30848 on June 18, 1996.
As discussed below in greater detail, vehicles such as golf carts
have not been regulated by NHTSA because they were not considered to be
manufactured for use on the public roads. Even when a vehicle is being
used on the roads, NHTSA has not regulated if it had an unusual
configuration, and if it had a top speed of 20 mph or less. However,
the agency has become aware that the design and use of some of these
vehicles are evolving in previously unanticipated ways. Although golf
carts have traditionally been limited in their operations to golf
courses, some states have taken legislative actions that permit the use
of golf carts on some public roads at speeds up to 25 mph. In addition,
there appears to be a growing interest worldwide in small vehicles of
unconventional configurations that are capable of exceeding 20 mph, and
that are intended for on-road use as city or commuter cars. While some
of these vehicles do not resemble very small passenger cars, neither do
they resemble the traditional golf cart.
The agency decided to review its historical position in light of
these changing circumstances. To aid it in its review, NHTSA
established Docket No. 96-65 and held two public meetings to receive
the comments of manufacturers and users of these vehicles, local
elected and law enforcement officials, public interest groups, and
other interested persons, on safety and regulatory issues affecting
golf carts and other light-weight limited-speed vehicles. The first
meeting was held in Palm Desert, California, on July 18, 1996. The
second meeting took place on July 25, 1996, at NHTSA headquarters in
Washington, D.C. Written comments were requested to be submitted by
August 8, 1996.
II. Legal Considerations
A. Federal Law
Title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 grants NHTSA regulatory authority over
``motor vehicles.'' All ``motor vehicles'' are subject to the Federal
motor vehicle safety standards promulgated by NHTSA pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 30111, and to the notification and remedy provisions of 49
U.S.C. 30118-30121. Those provisions must be followed in the event a
motor vehicle is determined to fail to comply with a safety standard,
or incorporates a safety related defect. A ``motor vehicle'' is defined
as a vehicle ``manufactured primarily for use on the public streets,
roads, and highways'' (Sec. 30102(a)(6)). The agency's interpretations
of the definition have centered on the meaning of the word
``primarily.'' The agency has generally interpreted ``primarily'' to
mean that a significant portion of a vehicle's use must be on the
public roads in order for the vehicle to be considered to be a motor
vehicle.
NHTSA's principal interpretation of the definition of ``motor
vehicle'' dates
[[Page 1078]]
from 1969, and addressed the status of mini-bikes. NHTSA said that the
capability of a vehicle to be operated on the public roads would be an
important criterion in determining whether it was a ``motor vehicle'',
but that test would not be reached if there were clear evidence as a
practical matter that the vehicle was not being used on the public
roads. In NHTSA's view, ``in the case of self-propelled riding mowers,
golf carts, and many other similar self-propelled vehicles, such clear
evidence exists.'' Thus, since 1969, the agency has declined to
regulate golf carts since they were not being operated on the public
roads.
The agency's interpretations have also excluded from regulation
motor vehicles that had ``abnormal'' configurations and a top speed of
20 miles per hour or less. As an example, NHTSA informed Trans2
Corporation in 1994 that its ``low-speed electric vehicle'' intended
for use in residential communities, university campuses, and industrial
complexes was not a ``motor vehicle'' because it had a top speed of 20
mph and unusual body features that made it readily distinguishable from
other ``motor vehicles.'' These features included an oval-shaped
passenger compartment, taillamps built into headrests, and a
configuration the approximate size and height of a golf cart. On the
other hand, in 1995, NHTSA informed Goodlife Motors Corporation that
its ``super golf car'' was a motor vehicle because it had a top speed
of 29 mph and its configuration resembled that of a prototype
Volkswagen passenger car.
NHTSA is aware that several companies want to manufacture small
battery-powered vehicles for use on the public roads which they call
``Neighborhood Electric Vehicles'' (``NEV''). The configuration of a
NEV may or may not be ``abnormal'', and its top speed may be as high as
35 mph. Any vehicle with a top speed over 20 mph is a ``motor vehicle''
under NHTSA's existing interpretations, regardless of its
configuration. As such, a NEV would have to comply with all Federal
vehicle safety standards that apply to heavier and faster passenger
cars. Whether conformance of NEVs with these standards is reasonable,
practicable and appropriate is an issue that NHTSA must consider.
B. State Laws
1. California
a. Definitions of ``Motor Vehicle'' and ``Golf Cart''
Since 1959, the California Vehicle Code (``CVC'') has defined a
motor vehicle as any ``vehicle which is self-propelled'' (CVC Sec.
415). California defines a golf cart as ``a motor vehicle having not
less than three wheels in contact with the ground, having an unladen
weight less than 1,300 pounds which is designed to be and is operated
at not more than 25 miles per hour and designed to carry golf equipment
and not more than two persons, including the driver'' (CVC Sec. 345).
b. 1994 Cal SB 2610 and 1995 Cal AB 110
In 1992, California amended its Streets and Highway Code (``CSHC'')
to establish a Golf Cart Transportation Pilot Program for the City of
Palm Desert (CSHC Secs. 1930-37). The 1992 law was replaced in 1994 by
SB 2610 which added Chapter 6, CSHC, to establish a ``Golf Cart
Transportation Plan'' applicable to the City of Palm Desert and the
City of Roseville.
Chapter 6 was amended in 1995 by AB 110 to apply to any city or
county in California. Chapter 6, as amended by AB 110, allows local
jurisdictions to establish a Golf Cart Transportation Plan area in
which golf carts are permitted to operate on ``golf cart lanes'',
defined as ``roadways * * * shared with pedestrians, bicyclists, and
other motorists in the plan area'' (CSHC 1951). Each plan must include
minimum design criteria for safety features on golf carts. Only seat
belts and covered passenger compartments are specifically required.
However, the law states that a plan ``may include'' other safety
features such as headlamps, turn signals, mirrors, stop lamps, and
windshields.
A plan under the California law must also include a permit process
for golf carts to ensure that they meet the minimum design criteria,
and golf cart operators meet minimum safety criteria. At a minimum, an
operator must have a valid California driver's license and carry a
minimum amount of insurance.
In addition, the law requires a plan to allow only carts equipped
with the requisite safety equipment to be operated on ``separated golf
cart lanes'' identified in the plan. Lane striping on the pavement
surface is sufficient for a lane to qualify as a ``separated golf cart
lane.'' Under the Palm Desert plan, there are two types of on-road
lanes, a ``Class II Golf Cart Lane'' for use only by golf carts and
bicycles, and a ``Class III Golf Cart Route'' for shared use with
automobile traffic at speeds up to 25 mph (the Route is identified by
placing Golf Cart Route signs along roadways).
In summary, through its Vehicle Code and Streets and Highway Code,
California now has in place a regulatory scheme under which golf carts
may use ``separated'', limited-speed portions of the public roads at
speeds up to 25 mph when equipped with the safety features required by
local authorities. Under NHTSA's existing interpretation, golf carts
and other vehicles designed for use in such jurisdictions that are
capable of operating at speeds above 20 mph in golf cart lanes would be
``motor vehicles'', subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety
standards that apply to heavier and faster motor vehicles. Moreover,
under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), Federal standards would preempt the local
requirements referred to in the California statutes.
The evolution in the use of golf carts presents a number of policy
issues that need to be addressed. This notice proposes to resolve those
issues.
2. Legislation in Other States
In Arizona, Senate Bill 1298 was enacted in 1996. It permits NEVs
to be operated at speeds up to 25 mph on public roads with posted
speeds of not more than 35 mph. The law does not require either that
separated lanes be created or that the NEVs be operated in those lanes
only. Florida House Bill 1329, which has passed both Houses of the
Florida Legislature, would also permit increased use of golf carts on
public roads.
III. Expression of Support by State Officials and Others
During the spring of 1996, NHTSA received letters from several
elected officials in California asking the agency to support the
concept of golf cart transportation plans and the use of golf carts and
NEVs at speeds up to 25 mph on public roads. The agency held a public
meeting in Palm Desert, California, on July 18, 1996, to hear first
hand the comments of interested persons. NHTSA's public meeting in Palm
Desert provided a forum for the expression of views by local officials
responsible for the implementation of golf cart transportation plans
and enforcement of traffic and safety laws, as well as by residents who
use golf carts pursuant to such plans. Earlier in the day, with the
assistance of the City of Palm Desert, NHTSA representatives were able
to make an on-site examination of the practical details of an actual
golf cart transportation plan in action. Activities included operating
golf carts on designated lanes in the plan area, crossing
intersections, and mixing with the local traffic.
After the second public meeting, held at NHTSA headquarters in
Washington on July 25, 1996, transcripts of both meetings were placed
in Docket No. 96-65.
[[Page 1079]]
IV. Market Forces
Another purpose for the public meetings was for NHTSA to achieve a
better understanding of the market and the vehicles that may emerge to
serve the consumer preferences reflected in the legislative
developments in California, Arizona, and Florida.
At least one specialty manufacturer, Bombardier, Inc. (Bombardier)
informed NHTSA that it would like to enter the market for a ``new and
growing segment of the transportation fleet: low-powered electric
vehicles.'' It has developed a NEV with a top speed of 25 mph for this
market, and believes that its vehicle will provide a low cost, low
speed, zero emissions mode of localized transportation to meet the
special needs of retirees, older Americans and others living in gated
communities for travel within their community or for limited activities
such as local golfing and other recreation-related, shopping, or short
distance trips.
According to Bombardier, municipal governments endorse the concept
as a way of helping them meet Clean Air Act mandates for National
Ambient Air Quality Standards by eliminating the polluting effects of
short distance automobile trips.
Bombardier has asked NHTSA for an interpretation that the NEV it
wishes to manufacture and market in these communities is not a ``motor
vehicle'' for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
Bombardier's request was premised on the agency's concluding that the
NEV has an abnormal configuration and deciding to raise the maximum
speed criterion from 20 mph to 25 mph.
V. Comments Requested by NHTSA
It is in the context discussed above that NHTSA has reexamined its
current interpretation of ``motor vehicle'' to determine the reasonable
and appropriate treatment of golf carts, NEVs, and other low-speed
vehicles under Federal law. In Notice No. 1, NHTSA invited comments on
the following issues to be discussed at the public meetings and to be
submitted to the docket:
1. Current and anticipated state and municipal regulations,
including infrastructure requirements, relating to the use of public
roads by golf carts or NEVs at speeds between 20 and 35 mph.
2. The text of any existing or proposed state or local safety
standards applicable to golf carts, NEVs, and other low-speed vehicles.
3. The views of owners and users of golf carts, NEVs, and other
low-speed vehicles.
4. Any data relating to on-road safety of golf carts, NEVs, and
other low-speed vehicles.
5. The views of law enforcement, safety, and health officials
concerning the on-road use of golf carts, NEVs, or other low-speed at
various speeds.
6. The views of manufacturers of golf carts, NEVs, and other low-
speed vehicles as to the burdens of compliance with Federal motor
vehicle safety standards and other regulations.
7. The views of commenters as to safety and bumper standards that
would be reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for golf carts, NEVs,
and other low-speed vehicles.
8. The views of state and local officials as to Federal regulation
of golf carts, NEVs, and other low-speed vehicles.
9. The views of other affected associations, advocacy groups,
business entities and individuals.
VI. Analysis and Discussion of Comments
Oral presentations were made in Palm Desert, in the following order
by the persons indicated: Roy Wilson (Riverside County Board of
Supervisors), Ramon Diaz (Palm Desert city manager), Commander Steven
Bloomquist (Palm Desert Section, Riverside County Sheriff's Office),
Kim Estock (district manager for Assemblyman Jim Battin), Bob Stranger
(regional manager, California Edison), David Bentler (electric
transportation project manager, Arizona Public Service Economic and
Community Development), Steve Pohle (president, Golf Cars Ltd.), Mark
Boutin (vice president of market development, Bombardier), Gus Gonzalez
(golf cart owner), Lisa Constande (environmental conservation manager,
City of Palm Desert), Betty Carapellese (resident of Palm Desert), and
James Thomas (vice-president of sales and marketing, Trans2
Corporation), who also spoke in Washington.
In addition to Mr. Thomas, presentations were made at the
Washington meeting by Fred L. Somers, Jr. (general counsel, National
Golf Cars Manufacturers Association (NGCMA)), Karen Strickland
(Department of Motor Vehicles, State of Arizona), Bonnie Singer
(consultant), Lou Finch (president of Electric Vehicle Systems
Corporation, a prospective manufacturer of vehicles for the mobility
impaired), and David Snyder (American Insurance Association).
Written comments were received from Rep. Sonny Bono, and, in the
order received, from Lois Wolk (mayor, City of Davis), J. Douglass Lynn
(Lynn & Associates with a subsequent submission as well, Bombardier,
Dr. Tim Lynch (Director, Center for Economic Forecasting and Analysis,
Institute for Science and Public Affairs, Florida State University),
the City of Palm Desert, Richard S. Kelley (president, Southern
California Association of Governments, two comments by Mr. Thomas of
Trans2 Corporation, Jim Douglas (assistant director, Motor Vehicle
Division, Arizona Department of Transportation, the written remarks of
Mr. Somers, several video tapes, Dr. James M. Lents (executive officer,
South Coast Air Quality Management District), George Boal (resident of
Palm Desert), Marilyn D. McLaughlin (resident of Palm Desert), David
Guthrie (deputy director, Arizona Department of Commerce, Harry C.
Gough (automotive engineering professional specialist, Connecticut
Department of Motor Vehicles), Paul and Jacklyn Schlagheck (residents
of Lady Lake, Florida), Dr. Gerald Donaldson (senior research director,
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (``Advocates'')), Jim Prentice
(resident of Port St. Lucie, Florida), Paul Jackson Rice, Esq. (Arent
Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn), Sheriff Ralph E. Ogden of Yuma, Arizona,
Lawrence Lingbloom (Sierra Club California), Cynthia Kelly, Esq.,
(government relations counsel, Golf Course Superintendents Association
of America), the Board of Directors of the Palm Desert Country Club
Association, Gerald W. (``Wally'') Powell (reliability engineer, EZGO
Textron (``EZGO'')), Bob Doyle (assistant sheriff, patrol and
investigations division, Riverside County Sheriff's Office), Wayne
Balmer (community development director, Mesa, Arizona), and Marvin B.
Jaques (vice president special projects, Ransomes American Corporation
(``Cushman''), the manufacturer of Cushman utility vehicles.
The commenters thus included representatives of state and local
governments including law enforcement officials, manufacturers and
users of NEVs and golf carts, representatives of utilities, a public
interest group, and other interested persons. NHTSA therefore considers
that the public and private interests that would be affected by its
decision were fairly and fully represented, and that its tentative
decision in this matter is consistent with the comments received and
with motor vehicle safety.
NHTSA's Docket Room has assigned a number to each comment. For
example, the first comment is denoted ``96-65-NO1-001.'' For
simplicity, in discussing specific submissions, this notice uses
[[Page 1080]]
only the last three digits to identify the comment, i.e., ``001.''
In brief, the political authorities and the public supported
electric golf carts and NEVs as addressing the public interest in a
cleaner environment (see, for example, comments by the City of Palm
Desert, 005). Users noted approvingly the mobility that is afforded by
the ability to use golf carts and NEVs on the public roads as an
alternative to the passenger car for short in-town trips (see, for
example, comments by Paul and Jacklyn Schlagheck, 020). These groups
testified to the absence of any on-road safety problems to date
involving golf carts and opposed any regulation by NHTSA that would
curtail driving them on the public roads, or that would increase their
costs. Golf cart manufacturers objected to the possible classification
their products as ``motor vehicles'' and wished to remain free of
Federal regulation.
After having reviewed these comments, the agency has reached the
tentative decisions discussed below.
A. Exclusions of Motor Vehicles From Regulation Based on Existing
Configuration and Speed Tests Are no Longer Viable
Dr. Lents asked NHTSA to ``recognize that a major revolution in
transportation is occurring with the increasing commercialization of
zero emission vehicles.'' (015). Realizing that resolution of the
issues would have ramifications beyond Bombardier and California, NHTSA
decided to begin its deliberative process by reviewing its current
interpretative posture.
Under these interpretations, vehicles that clearly were ``motor
vehicles'' manufactured for on-road use were nonetheless excused from
compliance with the agency's regulations if they had an abnormal
configuration and if their top speed did not exceed 20 mph. Because of
the increase in severity of motor vehicle crashes that occur at 25 mph
compared with those that occur at 20 mph, NHTSA never considered it a
viable option to raise the definitional criterion to the higher speed
as Bombardier requested. Advocates, in fact, asked that the speed be
lowered to 15 mph (021).
In the agency's opinion, the test of whether a particular
configuration is ``abnormal'' has evolved to the point at which its
results are arbitrary and subjective. It was initially applied to
vehicles such as street sweepers whose unusual configuration, in
conjunction with their large size, enabled drivers of other vehicles to
spot them at a distance in traffic. Over the years, the agency's
interpretations have come simply to inquire whether a vehicle has an
unusual configuration without regard to the bottomline significance of
that configuration, i.e., whether the vehicle could be readily spotted
at a distance in traffic. The extent of the evolution is illustrated by
conclusions in some recent interpretations that various small vehicles
met the configuration/speed criteria, notwithstanding that the vehicles
were so small that they could not in fact be readily seen in
approaching or preceding traffic. Further, perceptions of
``abnormality'' are subject to change in time as the shapes of motor
vehicles evolve to more aerodynamic forms. In addition, upon
reexamination, the basis for the criterion of a top speed of 20 mph was
unclear. As Lynn asked, why not 19 or 21? (002). For these reasons, the
agency has tentatively decided that the existing tests should no longer
be followed.
Instead, the agency believes it should follow and apply the
statutory definition of ``motor vehicle'' with no embellishments. Thus,
the only question to answer would be whether a vehicle is manufactured
primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways. If the
answer is ``yes,'' then the vehicle in question is a motor vehicle
subject to NHTSA's jurisdiction, regardless of speed and configuration.
NHTSA intends this policy to apply to vehicle types previously excluded
on the basis of their configuration and speed. However, with respect to
individual motor vehicles, it would apply to only those manufactured on
or after the effective date of a final rule in this rulemaking
proceeding.
NHTSA wishes to assure manufacturers of off-road vehicles that the
basic legal test of whether a motorized vehicle is a ``motor vehicle''
has never been at issue in these proceedings. If a vehicle is not
manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and
highways, it is not a ``motor vehicle''. Under this test, the agency
has given opinions, for example, that a vehicle whose use of the public
roads is occasioned only by the infrequent need to travel from one off-
road site to another is not a ``motor vehicle.'' Other examples of
vehicles that are not regarded ``motor vehicles'' because of the lack
of public road use are airport crash and rescue vehicles, buses used to
transport passengers from parking lots to air terminals, and small
utility vehicles used in plants and for grounds maintenance on private
property regardless of their top speed. This line of interpretations
remains in effect and is not affected by the agency's contemplated
abandonment of its exclusionary interpretations based on speed and
configuration.
After reaching this decision, the agency proceeded to the issues of
classification and regulations that might be appropriate for NEVs, on-
road golf carts, and other small vehicles.
B. Motor Vehicles With a Top Speed of 25 mph or Less Should be
Classified as ``Low-Speed Vehicles'' (LSVs)
If the agency ceases to exclude vehicles based on their
configuration and speed, vehicles previously excluded on those bases
would, without further regulatory action, be treated as motor vehicles
and classified according to the agency's existing definitions for
vehicle types, such as ``passenger car'' and ``truck.'' This raises the
question of whether the Federal motor vehicle safety standards
applicable to these categories of vehicles would also be suitable for
vehicles previously excluded from them on the basis of their
configuration and speed. Sheriff Ogden commented that it would be in
the best interests of law enforcement to classify NEVs as automobiles
(i.e., passenger cars) and that they be made to comply with the same
criteria as automobiles (026). But it is apparent to NHTSA that
requests for an expansion of the exclusionary interpretation would not
have been made in the first instance if golf carts and NEVs as
currently designed for production were able to be readily conformed in
a practicable manner to the full range of Federal safety standards.
NHTSA gathered some data on small motor vehicles manufactured in
other countries, specifically Japan and France, in order to determine
how other countries classify and regulate small vehicles. In Japan,
``kei'' class cars must be no wider than 1400 mm (approximately 4.6
feet), and no longer than 3300 mm (approximately 11 feet). These
dimensions are similar to those of the Trans2, which is 4.5 feet wide
and 11.75 feet long. To qualify for the ``kei'' class, gasoline-powered
engines must not have a displacement greater than 660 cc. In the
limited time available, NHTSA has been unable to determine whether
there was a speed limitation on ``kei'' class cars, or how or even if
these vehicles are regulated by the Japanese government.
According to the January 1997 issue of the American magazine
``Automobile'', there are two similar vehicle classes in France. The
first is ``Voitures sans Permis'' (VSP), allowed to be operated without
a driver's license, and the second, ``Tricycles et Quadricycles a
Moteur'' (TOM), slightly larger and faster cars that may be driven
[[Page 1081]]
by persons with a partial permit. NHTSA understands that approximately
9,000 VSPs and 1,000 TOMs are sold each year in Europe, and that there
are more than 100,000 of them in operation. Data gathered on seven
current vehicles indicates that they are similar in size to the ``kei''
class, with displacement of their one or two-cylinder engines ranging
from 315 cc to 505 cc. Five VSP vehicles had an apparent top speed of
45 kph (approximately 27 mph, reflecting a legal limit of 28 mph) and
two TOMs, 75 kph (45 mph, reflecting a legal limit of 47 mph). VSPs are
two-seater cars whose drivers must not be younger than 14 years; TOMs
are designed to carry four, and must not be driven by a person younger
than 16. It was not possible to determine in the time available whether
France requires compliance with any safety requirements, though basic
safety equipment such as lights, mirrors, and wipers were visible in
photographs of these cars. NHTSA notes that all the Japanese and French
cars considered resemble conventional passenger cars, albeit much
smaller, while NEVs and golf carts do not. Thus, if they are subject to
some foreign regulations, those regulations might not be appropriate
and practicable for small vehicles of the less conventional types
anticipated to be on the American market in the near future.
Seeking to draw a distinction between golf carts and NEVs, that is
to say, between off-road and on-road small vehicles, Somers of NGCMA
asked that NHTSA create a separate categories for golf carts and NEVs
(010), as did Powell of EZGo (032). Douglas of Arizona DOT suggested
that NHTSA adopt his State's definitions of ``golf cart'' and ``NEV''
(008). Lynn, on the other hand, recommended that NHTSA create a new
category of motor vehicle ``designed for local transportation
applications'' (002).
NHTSA concurs with Lynn's suggestion that it would be the
preferable regulatory solution to have a single definition, one that is
able to encompass the entire population of golf carts, NEVs, and small
vehicles that might not fit a definition for either. Thus, NHTSA began
to look for a common characteristic of all these vehicles in order to
develop a definition for them. A classification based on vehicle
dimensions such as the ``kei'' class appeared design restrictive, as
did one based on weight, a feature of state definitions.
Ultimately NHTSA realized that the comments pointed to a common
factor upon which a classification could be based, a maximum vehicle
speed of 25 mph. This speed value appears in the definitions of golf
carts by Arizona and California, as well as in Arizona's definition of
NEV. Twenty-five miles per hour is the maximum speed in the lanes on
the public streets on which the City of Palm Desert allows a mixture of
golf carts and larger vehicles to operate (005). The City was resolute
that it would never allow golf carts to operate on its streets at a
speed greater than 25 mph. In justification of its support of a
threshold of 25 mph, one NEV manufacturer commented that a vehicle with
a top speed of 25 mph flows ``with local traffic in speed limited areas
rather than inhibiting traffic at a lower speed. A maximum speed of 25
mph also provide increased maneuverability and consistent power, even
on hills'' (Thomas of Trans2 (007)). This speed was also supported by
Commander Bloomquist of the Sheriff's Office: ``[i]f the golf carts
have a greater speed, it is a detriment on the one hand, but it also
allows it to get out of its own way from time to time. It's also
important in avoiding accidents and the such.'' (011, Palm Desert
Meeting Transcript, p. 17). Since there is a ready consensus that NEVs
and on-road golf carts should have a top speed of not more than 25 mph,
NHTSA believes that a maximum speed of 25 mph should be the keystone of
any common definition encompassing NEVs and on-road golf carts (to the
contrary were comments by Somers and Donaldson of Advocates who asked
for a speed limit of 15 mph for golf carts used on the public roads
(005, 021)), and Lynch who surmised that a poll of states,
municipalities, and townships would show support for a 35 mph top speed
for NEVs (004)).
To encompass the wide variety of NEVs, golf carts, and other small
vehicles which may be manufactured in the future, NHTSA is proposing
creation of a new class of vehicle called ``low-speed vehicle'' (LSV)
with a definitional criterion of speed alone. LSVs would include all
motor vehicles, other than motorcycles (``motor driven cycles'', those
of low power, have always been regulated), whose speed attainable in 1
mile does not exceed 25 mph, regardless of the vehicle's size or
weight. This would mean that any motor vehicle, whether an NEV, an on-
road golf cart or other vehicle, would be likely be treated as a
passenger car and thus subject to all Federal motor vehicle safety
standards applicable to that class of vehicles if its top speed is more
than 25 mph.
C. Safety of Small Vehicles in Low-Speed Environments
The agency considered what Federal safety requirements might be
appropriate for LSVs, vehicles with a top speed of 25 mph or less. This
required an examination of the safety problems that may presently exist
for small, slow-moving vehicles. Intuitively, it appears that
passengers in LSVs might be at significant risk because of the small
size and relative fragility of LSVs (none of the NEVs or golf carts
are, for example, equipped with metal doors). The possibility of such a
risk was the express concern of Advocates which observed that ``small
light weight vehicles are vulnerable to serious crashes even at low
operating speeds.'' (021). However, because of the scarcity of four-
wheeled low-speed motor vehicles in operation in the United States,
there are virtually no accident data concerning them. Further, data for
more numerous types of small vehicles, such as motor scooters and motor
bikes, are not really indicative of the possible risk associated with
NEVs, given the greater vulnerability of all two-wheeled vehicles in
traffic.
Comments indicated that safety is not a problem for those persons
who presently regulate and use on-road golf carts. According to
Assistant Sheriff Doyle, ``[t]o date [August 5, 1996] there has not
been one traffic collision relating to the Palm Desert Golf Cart
Transportation Program [which has been in effect for three years]. One
citation has been issued a golf cart operator * * * for a city
ordinance violation prohibiting operation on a non-designated roadway.
The Department has received no reports or complaints about hazardous or
unsafe operation of these vehicles in the program. From a police
management perspective, the program to date has been a complete
success.'' (033). A similar statement was made by Commander Bloomquist
who admitted to having had initial concerns ``about the mixing of slow
moving vehicles with faster moving vehicles and also the size
difference, mentioning the physics of the speed difference between golf
carts and passenger vehicles and trucks and the like,'' but concluded
by saying he was pleased and relieved ``that we have not had any
accidents involving the larger vehicles which move at a greater speed
with the slower moving golf carts.'' (011, Transcript, pp. 16-17).
Indeed, there has only been one incident that might be termed an
accident--an overturn created by a joy-riding teenager using a golf
cart without the owner's authorization. Given the fact that only 183
golf carts had been registered by the City as of the date of the public
meeting, July 18, 1996, the lack of accidents may not be statistically
significant. However, they are the only
[[Page 1082]]
relevant ``data'' that NHTSA has found concerning the on-road safety of
golf carts.
Nevertheless, the Palm Desert experience is supported by anecdotal
evidence from other commenters covering a time span longer than three
years (the reader will recall that California has authorized a more
limited use of the public roads since 1959). Palm Desert resident
Marilyn D. McLaughlin said that ``[f]or more than 34 years, golf cart
owners here in Palm Desert Country Club have shared the streets with
automobiles, trucks, etc. and I have not heard of any reports of
accidents during that entire period''. In her opinion, ``safety does
not appear to be an issue.'' (017). Her view was supported by another
Palm Desert resident, George Boal: ``[i]n over 30 years I cannot recall
one accident involving moving vehicles and golf carts.'' (016). A
somewhat similar comment was made by Paul and Jacklyn Schlagheck of
Lady Lake, Florida, indicating that the Palm Desert experience may not
be unique: ``[t]he use of golf carts has been safe, with residents very
responsible about where and when they use them * * * It goes without
saying that people don't take their golf carts out * * * on busy roads
with speeds posted at 50 mph.'' (020).
These comments are consistent with a conclusion reached in the City
of Palm Desert's ``Golf Cart Transportation Program Monitoring Report''
(January 1994) (Attachment 3, 005) about the safety of NEVs. In a
discussion of safety issues (The U.C. Davis Neighborhood Electric
Vehicle Research Project, p. 22), the Report observes that ``[w]hen the
vehicle is well matched with the driving environment the vehicle will
be very safe.'' Specifically, ``[f]or the NEV, a driving environment
which consists of lower speed streets is well matched to the vehicle's
safety capabilities.'' Conceding that NEVs are less visible than other
vehicles, are less able to maintain safe operating speeds, and that
occupants are at greater risk of injury in higher speed collisions, the
Report concluded that ``[a]t lower speeds, these issues are
negligible.''
Part of the reason for the lack of accidents involving on-road golf
carts may be certain ordinances of Palm Desert intended to minimize the
possibility of accidents involving golf carts and other motor vehicles.
One of these prohibits operation of golf carts on the public streets
during the hours between one hour after dusk and one hour before dawn.
Another restricts their operation on the public streets to designated
lanes where the speed limit for all vehicles using the lane is 25 mph.
Golf carts may not otherwise be operated on public roads. In short, the
City has taken steps under State law to create a structured environment
for the operation of golf carts on the public roads consistent with its
views of traffic safety. There is no assurance, of course, that other
states or municipalities will take these steps or otherwise address
operational safety in allowing golf carts on the public roads, but
NHTSA commends the Palm Desert regulatory scheme to their attention.
On the basis of comments discussed above, the agency has
tentatively concluded that motor vehicle safety does not demand, for
the present, a comprehensive and detailed regulatory scheme under which
LSVs must comply with the full range of Federal motor vehicle safety
standards that apply to faster vehicles. However, the risk of exposure
to accidents may increase as the numbers of LSVs increase. Thus, at a
future time, more stringent regulation might become appropriate. NHTSA
intends to monitor LSV accident data carefully. Accordingly, the agency
asks the public to assist it in filing relevant information in Docket
No. 96-65 which will remain open for this purpose.
D. A Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard for LSVs
If the agency were to cease relying upon the interpretative
criteria of abnormal configuration and 20 mph maximum speed, and to
adopt the proposed definition of LSVs, certain unique vehicles found on
the public roads would be treated as LSVs. Examples of these vehicles
are street sweepers, steamrollers and road graders. The common
characteristics of these vehicles is that they are work-performing and
transport only their operator. Consistent with its past interpretative
treatment of such vehicles, the agency proposes to exclude work-
performing LSVs from compliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety
standard including the new Standard No. 100 proposed in this document.
However, as motor vehicles, they would become subject to the statutory
provisions regarding notification and remedy of safety related defects.
NHTSA is also faced with the regulatory dilemma of appropriate
treatment for golf carts, a type of vehicle historically exempt from
NHTSA regulation. The agency has no wish to regulate golf carts.
However, it is faced with an increasing number of state and local laws
specifically permitting their use on the public streets, roads, and
highways.
As in the case of LSVs, maximum vehicle speed appears to be a
rational basis on which to base a distinction between those golf carts
that should not be considered motor vehicles and those that should.
Until recently, California and Arizona defined a golf cart, in part, as
a vehicle with a top speed of 15 mph. Golf cart manufacturers seem to
have adhered to this limit over the years. ANSI/NGCMA Standard Z130.1-
1993 prescribing voluntary safety and performance requirements for golf
carts contains a maximum vehicle speed test under which ``[t]he average
speed shall not exceed 15 mi/h (24 km/h)'' (9.6.1.3) Average speed is
determined through runs in opposite directions and by averaging the
results. Thus, historically, the industry appears to have designed golf
carts for a maximum speed of not more than 15 mph. Historically, this
is the type of golf cart that NHTSA has not regulated. The agency has
therefore tentatively concluded that a golf cart with a maximum speed
that does not exceed 15 mph is a vehicle that is not primarily
manufactured for use on the public roads, and therefore is not a
``motor vehicle''.
If a golf cart manufacturer decides to increase the maximum speed
capability of its golf carts to above 15 mph in response to the
decision in some states to increase the speed thresholds in their
definitions of ``golf carts'' and to allow such vehicles to operate on
certain public roads, it seems evident to NHTSA that such a
manufacturer intends its vehicles to be used on the public roads as
well as on golf courses. Mr. Rice brought the agency's attention to an
engine of 3.75 HP offered by one golf cart manufacturer as an
alternative to the standard 3.1 HP engine. The manufacturer's product
literature states specifically that the motor does not meet Z130.1's
standard for ``speed requirements.'' (025). NHTSA interprets this
statement to mean that golf carts equipped with the optional engine
have a maximum speed in excess of 15 mph. In recognition of the
apparent intent that these higher speed vehicles be used on public
roads, NHTSA is proposing a definition of ``golf car'' (the term
preferred by the NGCMA), as a vehicle designed to convey golfers on a
golf course and whose maximum speed is between 15 mph and 25 mph. Golf
cars would be considered to be LSVs and thus required to meet LSV
requirements. NHTSA would use the term ``golf cart'' to refer to only
those vehicles designed to convey golfers on a golf course and whose
maximum speed is 15 mph.
As indicated, there was some sentiment to applying a rigorous set
of safety standards to LSVs (Sheriff Ogden, 026; Advocates, 021). Lynn
believed that NHTSA should ``create a new body
[[Page 1083]]
of safety standards that will challenge the nation's engineering
community.'' (002). Cushman took the gradualist approach, commenting
that ``[s]tatistics regarding frequency and severity of accidents in
these communities will help determine appropriate safety regulations
and features. The bumper standard may be appropriate for occupant
protection rather than limiting body damage.'' (037).
Two sources emerged from the meeting and comments upon which a
safety standard for LSVs might be based. These sources are NEV
manufacturers and the equipment regulations of the City of Palm Desert
for golf carts.
NHTSA received comments from two NEV manufacturers, Bombardier and
Thomas. The Bombardier NEV will be equipped with a safety glass
windshield, a lighting system designed around automotive safety
standards, a 3-point belt system, horn, and mirror. (003). According to
Thomas, the Trans2 NEV is equipped with front and rear turn signals,
anchored 3-point belts, full exterior lighting, a laminated safety
glass windshield, and windshield wipers. (007). Thomas added that NHTSA
could add these features to a 25-mph requirement for classification
purposes.
The City of Palm Desert requires that golf carts registered for use
on the public roads in its plan area be equipped with head lamps, stop
lamps, taillamps, front and rear turn signal lamps, mirrors (left and
right side, or left side and rearview, or a ``multi-directional cross
bar,'' which is an elongated interior mirror that reflects the driving
environment on both sides of the vehicle), red reflex reflectors on
each side at the rear of the cart between 15 and 60 inches above the
ground, parking brake, horn, windshield, seat belts, a golf cart
locking device, and ``safely equipped or properly loaded to conform
with CVC Section 24002.'' (Attachment 4, 005, p. 5).
There appears, then, to be a consensus among manufacturers of NEVs
and the City of Palm Desert, the leading local regulator of golf carts,
as to requirements meeting the local need for safety of small, slow-
moving vehicles. Given that there does not appear to be any present
need to apply the full range of Federal motor vehicle safety standards
to LSVs at this time, and that an equipment standard is already in
place which LSVs must meet if they are to be operated on the public
roads of at least one jurisdiction, NHTSA has tentatively concluded
that the Palm Desert standard affords a basis upon which a reasonable,
practicable, and appropriate standard may be promulgated on the Federal
level as an initial effort to address LSV safety.
The agency proposal differs from the requirements of Palm Desert in
the following manner. The agency does not require a horn on other motor
vehicles, so none is proposed for LSVs. NHTSA understands that a
``locking device'' simply means that a golf cart cannot be operated
without a key to turn on the power, and assumes that this will be the
way that LSVs will be manufactured.
NHTSA is not proposing to require the use of a ``multi-directional
cross bar mirror.'' However, its proposed term, ``interior mirror,'' is
broad enough to accommodate its use. The ``seat belts'' would be
specified to be either Type 1 or Type 2 conforming to Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard No. 209 ``Seat Belt Assemblies.'' The agency requests
comments on the practicability of requiring all LSVs including golf
cars to have Type 2 lap and shoulder belt assemblies. The windshield
would have to be glazing marked ``AS 1'' by its prime manufacturer.
NHTSA is proposing that these requirements be placed in a new
Federal motor vehicle safety standard called Standard No. 100 Low-speed
vehicles. A ``low-speed vehicle,'' or LSV, would be a motor vehicle,
other than a motorcycle, whose speed attainable in 1 mile does not
exceed 25 mph (``speed attainable in 1 mile'' is the expression used in
other Federal standards to denote maximum speed). LSVs would include,
but not be limited to ``golf cars'' (defined as vehicles that are used
to convey golfers on golf courses and whose speed attainable in 1 mile
exceeds 15 mph but does not exceed 25 mph.) LSVs would not include
``golf carts'' (defined as vehicles that are used to convey golfers on
golf courses and whose speed attainable in 1 mile is not greater than
15 miles per hour.) This is essentially the same definition the
industry uses in ANSI/NGCMA Z130.1-1993 for golf car.
LSVs would not be required to meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards Nos. 101 through 304 and the bumper standard. LSVs, other
than LSVs with work-performing equipment, would have to be equipped
with headlamps, front and rear turn signal lamps, taillamps, stop
lamps, rear reflex reflectors mounted on each side not less than 15
inches and not more than 60 inches above the road surface, a driver's
side exterior rear view mirror plus either an interior rear view mirror
or an exterior mirror on the passenger side, a windshield marked ``AS
1'', and Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assemblies that conform to Standard
No. 209. Lighting equipment would not need to meet either the lighting
standard, Standard No. 108 or the rear view mirror standard, Standard
No. 111. Thus, the performance characteristics of lamps, reflectors,
and mirrors would be left to the manufacturer. The manufacturers'
certifications of compliance of LSVs as required by 49 CFR Part 567
would simply be an affirmation that the LSV had been manufactured with
the equipment specified by Standard No. 100. Finally, NHTSA deems it
advisable that such LSVs also be equipped with a label warning that it
must not be operated on the public roads at a speed more than 25 mph.
This is to ensure that the operator of an LSV that may have been
modified so that its top speed exceeds 25 mph would have a permanent
reminder that the vehicle was not designed to be operated at speeds
greater than 25 mph.
LSVs with work-performing equipment would not be subject to
Standard No. 100. Their work-performing nature makes it unlikely that
they would be used for on-road transportation purposes in jurisdictions
like Palm Desert.
E. Modifying the Speed Capabilities of LSVs
Since the advent of the Palm Desert plan, NHTSA is aware that the
speed capability of some golf carts may have been modified to exceed 15
mph, to take advantage of the mobility offered by the plan. Similarly,
it may be possible to modify LSVs, through removal of a governor or
otherwise, so that their maximum speed exceeds 25 mph. If an LSV in use
were modified so that its maximum speed exceeds 25 mph, it would no
longer be an LSV under the definition. Further, operation at a speed
exceeding 25 mph would be in violation of local traffic laws.
Increasing the speed of most LSVs would convert them into passenger
cars. However, they would not conform to passenger car standards and
would not afford the protection that NHTSA deems needed for the public
at speeds higher than 25 mph. As a result of the speed modification,
the equipment required by Standard No. 100 would no longer afford the
anticipated level of protection. Thus, speed modification would, in a
sense, make the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 100
``inoperative'' within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 30122 when an LSV is
modified to exceed 25 mph without being conformed to Federal motor
vehicle safety standards applicable to its vehicle type. This section
prohibits a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair
business from making inoperative any element of
[[Page 1084]]
design or device installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle
safety standard.
If a golf cart in use were modified so that its maximum speed
exceeds 15 mph, it would become a ``golf car'' and an LSV, if its speed
did not exceed 25 mph, and it would become a ``passenger car,'' if its
speed exceeded 25 mph. However, there would not be any violation of
section 30122 since the making inoperative prohibition does not apply
either to a vehicle that was not a motor vehicle as originally
manufactured or to a vehicle or motor vehicle that was not subject to
any Federal safety standards as originally manufactured. When operated
on the public roads, the modified golf cart would have to comply with
local regulations which, in Palm Desert, requires licensing and
retrofitting with the safety equipment required by the City,
essentially the same that is required by Standard No. 100.
F. Effect on State and Local Registration and Use Laws
Some commenters misunderstood the limits of NHTSA's regulatory
authority and NHTSA wishes to correct these misimpressions.
Supervisor Wilson asked the agency for its ``approval in allowing
Neighborhood Electric Vehicles and other slow-moving vehicles to
operate on public roadways * * *.'' (011, Transcript, Palm Desert
meeting, p. 9). NHTSA understands this to be a broad request not to
take any regulatory action that would restrict or prohibit the public
from using LSVs. The agency has no authority to ``approve'' or
``allow'' any type of vehicle to operate on the public roads. That is
solely a function of local government. However, imposition of costly-
to-meet regulations would have the probable effect of curtailing future
production of LSVs and hence their availability for the ends deemed
desirable by local regulatory authorities. NHTSA's initial regulatory
effort for LSVs would not affect the availability of low-speed
vehicles, and would not affect the way they will be used in the plan
area.
Powell of EZGo asked NHTSA to initiate steps to preempt all state
and local regulation of golf carts on the public roads until a safety
analysis can be made of the safety issues and an optimum response
fashioned to them (032). He also asked that NHTSA mandate speed limits
not to exceed 15 mph for golf carts used on public roads. NHTSA has no
legal authority to set local speed limits or to prescribe regulations
governing the operation of low-speed vehicles. NHTSA has authority to
set standards that apply to vehicles from the time of manufacture to
the time of initial sale, but not regulations that directly control how
they are operated on the public roads.
Gough of DMV Connecticut commented that his state does not allow
registration of low-performance vehicles of golf cart-like performance,
and feared that it would be forced to ``allow general use if the
vehicles are sanctioned by NHTSA.'' (019). He urged the agency ``to
require some form of state approval of areas where such vehicles would
be allowed before any consideration of approval or sanctioning is to be
made.'' As noted above, NHTSA does not have authority to ``approve'' or
``disapprove'' the use of on-road vehicles in designated areas. The
question raised by Gough in actuality is whether a state is preempted
from refusing to register a motor vehicle for use on the public roads
if that vehicle has been certified to comply with all applicable
Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
Gough has raised an important issue concerning the extent of
preemption under the NHTSA's statute. Under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1),
``When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect * * * a State or a
political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a
standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor
vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to
the standard prescribed under this chapter.'' The agency has
interpreted the preemption clause as meaning that a State cannot impose
a heavier burden upon a vehicle for purposes of registration where the
vehicle has been manufactured to meet a Federal standard covering the
same aspect of performance. Thus, a State could not require LSVs to be
equipped with mirrors conforming to Standard No. 111 because that would
not be required by proposed Standard No. 100. But a State could specify
requirements for braking system performance since there is no similar
requirement proposed in Standard No. 100.
The legislative history of the preemption clause is clear that it
was the purpose of the drafters that ``[t]he centralized, mass
production, high volume character of the motor vehicle manufacturing
industry * * * requires that motor vehicle safety standards * * * be
uniform throughout the country.'' (S. Rpt. No. 1301, 89th Cong. 2d
Sess. (1966), p. 12). The preemption section ``is intended to result in
uniformity of standards so that the public as well as industry will be
guided by one set of criteria rather than by a multiplicity of diverse
standards.'' (H. Rpt. No. 1776, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. (1966), p. 17).
With respect to Gough's concern, Connecticut simply does ``not allow
registration of low performance vehicles of golf-cart like
performance.'' The State is not seeking to establish or maintain a
standard different from Standard No. 100. Connecticut has issued no
standard at all, and the question of preemption does not arise. By its
action (or lack thereof), Connecticut has imposed no additional
manufacturing burden upon manufacturers of LSVs. NHTSA does not
attribute to the drafters of 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1) a Congressional
intent to force a State to accept and register a class of vehicles
where a State has chosen not to do so, even if that class of vehicles
is certified as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety
standards. It should be noted that NHTSA has no authority to impose use
restrictions upon registered, certified vehicles, so that even if
Connecticut were preempted and required to register LSVs, the State
could impose operating restrictions that would significantly limit
their use on the public roads.
G. Costs to Conform to Standard No. 100
In its program monitoring report of January 1994, Palm Desert
included the questionnaire that it had sent in November 1993 to the 80
persons who at that time had registered their golf carts with the city.
One of the questions asked was the cost to modify golf carts to meet
City requirements. Sixty-one responded to the questionnaire, and the
average cost was reported to be $150. (Attachment 3, 005, p. 10).
However, two and one half years later, at the Palm Desert hearing
on July 18, 1996, Steve Pohle, a dealer in golf carts, estimated that
the cost to a golf cart owner to retrofit the vehicle with the
equipment required by the City is approximately $400, including ``about
$115'' for the windshield (011, Transcript, p. 54). NHTSA anticipates
that manufacturers of LSVs (NEVs and on-road golf carts) would be able
to achieve economies of scale so that their direct costs would be
substantially less than $400 per vehicle. NHTSA requests that
commenters address the costs associated with conforming to Standard No.
100, and to explain the basis for their estimates.
Request for Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal.
It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length (49 CFR 553.21).
Necessary attachments may be
[[Page 1085]]
appended to these submissions without regard to the 15-page limit. This
limitation is intended to encourage commenters to detail their primary
arguments in a concise fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting for the
information specified in the agency's confidential business information
regulation, 49 CFR part 512.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and
will be available for examination in the docket at the above address
both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed
after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too
later for consideration in regard to the final rule will be considered
as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on the proposal
will be available to inspection in the docket. NHTSA will continue to
file relevant information as it becomes available in the docket after
the closing date and it is recommended that interested persons continue
to examine the docket for new material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
Effective Date
Because there is a standard already in effect which manufacturers
of LSVs must meet if they wish to sell their product in at least one
regional market, and because such manufacturers wish to introduce LSVs
at the earliest possible time, it is hereby tentatively found that an
effective date earlier than 180 days after issuance of a final rule
would be practicable and in the public interest. Accordingly, proposed
Standard No. 100 would be effective 45 days after publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This action has not been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. It
has been determined that the rulemaking action is not significant under
Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures.
Because LSVs are a new type of motor vehicle for which a national
market does not yet exist, it is not possible to determine a yearly
cost impact. There are at present two types of vehicles that meet the
definition of LSV: NEVs and golf cars. Because they are distinctly
different--NEVs are purpose built for on road use and can be operated
on golf courses, while golf cars are simply golf carts with equipment
added for on road use--no manufacturer known to NHTSA produces both
NEVs and golf cars. As discussed previously in this document, both the
Bombardier NEV and Trans2 NEV will be manufactured with essentially all
items of equipment required by the City of Palm Desert for on-road
operation (see comments 003 and 007), so that the only additional cost
likely to be incurred in complying with proposed Standard No. 100 are
the minor ones of the warning label, and the manufacturer's label
certifying compliance. Given the golf cart industry's position that it
does not intend its vehicles to be operated off golf courses, the
industry may choose to limit the speed of all its production of golf
carts to a maximum of 15 mph rather than incur the costs of complying
golf cars with Standard No. 100 through add-ons to existing designs for
a limited percentage of its production. Until new designs are
developed, add-ons to golf cars during manufacture will be in the
nature of retrofits. Information presented at the California public
meeting indicated that the average cost of 61 respondent owners to
retrofit a golf cart with the prescribed equipment was an average of
$150 in January 1994, and could be as high as $400 in July 1996.
However, the cost to a manufacturer who buys this equipment in quantity
and adds it to a NEV or golf car during the original manufacturing
process is likely to be much lower. So that NHTSA might better assess
the cost impact of this rulemaking action, the agency invites
manufacturers to submit data and market estimates, if need be on a
confidential basis, so that it may have a more accurate idea of costs
when the final rule is issued.
NHTSA is preparing a regulatory evaluation for placement in the
docket concurrent with, or shortly after publication of, this document.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. It is not anticipated that a final
rule based on this proposal would have a significant effect upon the
environment. Information presented to NHTSA indicated that any increase
in the production of LSVs is likely to be largely in those powered by
electricity.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The agency has also considered the impacts of this rulemaking
action in relation to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Sec. 601
et seq). I certify that this rulemaking action would not have a
significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small
entities.
The following is NHTSA's statement providing the factual basis for
the certification (5 U.S.C. Sec. 605(b)). The proposed amendment would
primarily affect manufacturers of non-conventional motor vehicles not
heretofore regulated by NHTSA. Under 15 U.S.C. Chapter 14A ``Aid to
Small Businesses'', a small business concern is ``one which is
independently owned and operated and which is not dominant in its field
of operation'' (15 U.S.C. Sec. 632). The Small Business
Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR Part 121 define a small
business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates primarily
within the United States.'' NHTSA believes that there is at present
only one entity that has been manufacturing LSVs as defined by the
proposed rule, and that therefore it is ``dominant in its field of
operation.'' A second entity that intends to manufacture LSVs in the
near future operates primarily outside the United States. Golf cart
manufacturers can avoid being classified as manufacturers of LSVs by
ensuring that the maximum speed of their vehicles does not exceed 15
m.p.h.
Further, small organizations and governmental jurisdictions would
not be significantly affected as the purchasers of LSVs are anticipated
to be private individuals who want a small, alternative mode of
transportation instead of a conventional motor vehicle, as a second
vehicle for use in their immediate residential area.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
This rulemaking action has also been analyzed in accordance with
the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and
NHTSA has determined that this rulemaking action does not have
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
Federalism Assessment.
[[Page 1086]]
Civil Justice
A final rule based on this proposal would not have any retroactive
effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety
standard is in effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety
standard applicable to the same aspect of performance which is not
identical to the Federal standard. Section 30163 sets forth a procedure
for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending, or revoking
Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section does not require
submission of a petition for reconsideration or other administrative
proceedings before parties may file suit in court.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 571 would be amended
as follows:
The authority citation for part 571 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30166; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. A new Sec. 571.100 would be added to subpart B to read as set
forth below:
Sec. 571.100 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 100 Low-speed vehicles.
S1. Scope. This standard specifies requirements for low-speed
vehicles.
S2. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to ensure that low-
speed vehicles operated on the public streets, roads, and highways are
furnished with the minimum motor vehicle equipment necessary for motor
vehicle safety.
S3. Applicability. This standard applies to low-speed vehicles.
This standard does not apply to golf carts.
S4. Definitions.
Golf car means a motor vehicle, whose speed attainable in 1 mile
exceeds 15 mph but does not exceed 25 mph, used to convey one or more
persons and equipment to play the game of golf in an area designated as
a golf course.
Golf cart means a vehicle, whose speed attainable in 1 mile does
not exceed 15 mph, used to convey one or more persons and equipment to
play the game of golf in an area designated as a golf course.
Low-speed vehicle means a motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle,
whose speed attainable in 1 mile does not exceed 25 mph. With respect
to vehicles used to convey golfers on golf courses, it excludes golf
carts, but includes golf cars. Any motor vehicle that meets this
definition is excluded from the classes of vehicles defined in
Sec. 571.3 of this subpart, and is not a ``passenger motor vehicle''
for the purposes of Part 581 of this Chapter.
S5. Requirements.
(a) A low-speed vehicle, other than a low-speed vehicle with work
performing features, shall be equipped with:
(1) Headlamps,
(2) Front and rear turn signal lamps,
(3) Taillamps,
(4) Stop lamps,
(5) One red reflex reflector on each side as far to the rear as
practicable and located not less than 15 inches nor more than 60 inches
above the road surface,
(6) An exterior mirror mounted on the driver's side of the vehicle
and either an exterior mirror mounted on the passenger's side of the
vehicle or an interior mirror,
(7) A parking brake,
(8) A windshield marked ``AS 1'' by its prime glazing material
manufacturer, and
(9) A Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly conforming to Sec.
571.209 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies,
installed at each designated seating position.
(b) Each vehicle to which paragraph (a) of this S.5 applies shall
bear a label permanently affixed, visible to the operator when seated,
which reads ``WARNING: This vehicle must not be operated on the public
roads at a speed more than 25 mph.''
Issued: January 3, 1997.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 97-386 Filed 1-3-97; 2:19 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
