[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