[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 116 (Wednesday, June 17, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33194-33217]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16003]


      

[[Page 33193]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



National Highway Traffic Safety Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



49 CFR Part 571



Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 116/ Wednesday, June 17, 1998/ Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 33194]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA 98-3949]
RIN 2127-AG58


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule responds to a growing public interest in using 
golf cars 1 and other similar-sized, 4-wheeled vehicles to 
make short trips for shopping, social and recreational purposes 
primarily within retirement or other planned communities with golf 
courses. These passenger-carrying vehicles, although low-speed, offer a 
variety of advantages, including comparatively low-cost and energy-
efficient mobility. Further, many of these vehicles are electric-
powered. The use of these vehicles, instead of larger, gasoline-powered 
vehicles like passenger cars, provides quieter transportation that does 
not pollute the air of the communities in which they are operated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ While many members of the general public use the term ``golf 
cart,'' the manufacturers of those vehicles use the term ``golf 
car.'' This final rule uses ``golf car,'' except in those instances 
in which the other term is used in a quotation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, there is a growing conflict between state and local 
laws, on the one hand, and Federal law, on the other, in the treatment 
of these small vehicles. That conflict unnecessarily restricts the 
ability of vehicle manufacturers to produce and sell, and the ability 
of consumers to purchase, these vehicles. In recent years, a growing 
number of states from California to Florida have passed legislation 
authorizing their local jurisdictions to permit general on-road use of 
``golf carts,'' subject to speed and/or operational limitations. A 
majority of those states condition such broad use upon the vehicles' 
having specified safety equipment. Further, some of these states have 
opened the way for the use of vehicles that are faster than almost all 
golf cars. Most conventional golf cars, as originally manufactured, 
have a top speed of less than 15 miles per hour. These states have 
either redefined ``golf carts'' to include vehicles designed to achieve 
up to 25 miles per hour or have established a new class of vehicles, 
``neighborhood electric vehicles,'' also defined as capable of 
achieving 25 miles per hour.
    Under current NHTSA interpretations and regulations, so long as 
golf cars and other similar vehicles are incapable of exceeding 20 
miles per hour, they are subject to only state and local requirements 
regarding safety equipment. However, if these vehicles are originally 
manufactured so that they can go faster than 20 miles per hour, they 
are treated as motor vehicles under Federal law. Similarly, if golf 
cars are modified after original manufacture so that they can achieve 
20 or more miles per hour, they too are treated as motor vehicles. 
Further, as motor vehicles, they are currently classified as passenger 
cars and must comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards 
for that vehicle type. This creates a conflict with the state and local 
laws because compliance with the full range of those standards is not 
feasible for these small vehicles.
    To resolve this conflict, and to permit the manufacture and sale of 
small, 4-wheeled motor vehicles with top speeds of 20 to 25 miles per 
hour, this final rule reclassifies these small passenger-carrying 
vehicles. Instead of being classified as passenger cars, they are now 
being classified as ``low-speed vehicles.'' Since conventional golf 
cars, as presently manufactured, have a top speed of less than 20 miles 
per hour, they are not included in that classification.
    As low-speed vehicles, these 20 to 25 mile-per-hour vehicles are 
subject to a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 500 (49 CFR 
571.500) established by this final rule. The agency notes that the 
growing on-road use of golf cars has already resulted in some deaths 
and serious injuries, and believes that the new standard is needed to 
address the effects in crashes of the higher speed of low-speed 
vehicles. The standard requires low-speed vehicles to be equipped with 
headlamps, stop lamps, turn signal lamps, taillamps, reflex reflectors, 
parking brakes, rearview mirrors, windshields, seat belts, and vehicle 
identification numbers. The agency believes that these requirements 
appropriately address the safety of low-speed vehicle occupants and 
other roadway users, given the sub-25 mph speed capability of these 
vehicles and the controlled environments in which they operate.
    This rulemaking proceeding was initiated in response to a request 
by Bombardier, Inc., that the agency make regulatory changes to permit 
the introduction of a new class of 4-wheeled, passenger-carrying 
vehicle that is small, relatively slow-moving, and low-cost.

DATES: The final rule is effective June 17, 1998. Petitions for 
reconsideration must be filed not later than August 3, 1998.
    Incorporation by reference of the materials listed in this document 
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register and is effective 
upon publication in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the Docket 
number and be submitted to Docket Management, PL-401, 400 7th Street, 
SW, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical issues: Stephen R. Kratzke, Office of Crash Avoidance 
Standards, NHTSA, Room 5307, 400 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590 
(telephone 202-366-4931; fax 202-366-4329).
    For legal issues: Taylor Vinson, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA, 
Room 5219, 400 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-366-
5263; fax 202-366-3820).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Glossary
II. Executive Summary
    A. The Final Rule
    B. Comparison of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Final Rule
III. Background
    A. Introduction; Sub-25 MPH Vehicles and the Traditional 
Interpretation of ``Motor Vehicles''
    B. 1996 Request for Regulatory Relief
    C. Pre-Rulemaking Study and 1996 Public Meetings
    D. Regulatory Options Considered
    E. 1997 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    F. Summary of Comments on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    1. State and Local Officials; Utilities
    2. Manufacturers and Dealers of Golf Cars and Neighborhood 
Electric Vehicles
    3. Advocacy Organizations
    4. Other Commenters
    G. Post-Comment Period Comments and Information
    1. Manufacturers and Dealers of Golf Cars; Members of Congress
    2. Other Sources
IV. Final Rule and Resolution of Key Issues
    A. Summary
    B. Authority and Safety Need for this Final Rule
    1. Low-Speed Vehicles are Motor Vehicles
    a. Speed-modified Golf Cars Are Motor Vehicles
    b. Neighborhood Electric Vehicles Are Motor Vehicles
    2. The Agency Has Authority to Regulate Anticipated as well as 
Current Safety Problems
    3. Issuance of this Rule Appropriately Addresses an Anticipated 
Safety Problem
    a. Crash Data Show a Limited Safety Problem Involving the On-
road Use of Fleet and Personal Golf Cars

[[Page 33195]]

    b. The States Have Adopted Laws Requiring Safety Equipment on 
Fleet and Personal Golf Cars Used on Public Roads
    c. There is a Similar, But Greater Anticipated Safety Problem 
Involving Low-Speed Vehicles
    d. This Rule Requires Safety Equipment on Low Speed Vehicles 
Consistent with Their Characteristics and Operating Environment
    4. The Agency Has Appropriately Considered the Experience of 
Foreign Small Vehicles
    C. Safety Engineering Issues
    1. Speed Range of Motor Vehicles Subject to this Standard
    a. Minimum Threshold of 20 Miles per Hour
    b. Upper Limit of 25 Miles per Hour
    2. Seat Belts
    3. Windshields
    4. VINs, Horn, and Warning Label
    5. Other Areas of Safety Performance; Future Considerations
    D. Compliance with Other Statutory Requirements Relating to 
Safety and With Federal Statutes Regulating Non-Safety Aspects of 
Motor Vehicles
    1. Other Statutory Requirements Relating to Safety
    2. Federal Statutes Regulating Non-Safety Aspects of Motor 
Vehicles
    a. Theft
    b. Content Labeling
    c. Corporate Average Fuel Economy
    d. Bumper Standards
V. Effective Date
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Regulatory Text

I. Glossary

    Since some of the groups of vehicles discussed in this final rule 
may be unfamiliar to many readers, the agency has listed and defined 
them below. In addition, it has shown their relationship to each other 
in the graph following the list.
    ``Sub-25 mph vehicle'' means any 4-wheeled vehicle whose top speed 
is not greater than 25 miles per hour. This group includes all of the 
vehicles in the other groups below, except those speed-modified golf 
cars whose top speed is greater than 25 miles per hour.
    ``Conventional golf car'' means either a fleet golf car or a 
personal golf car.
    (A) ``Fleet golf car'' means a golf car used solely to carry one or 
more people and golf equipment to play golf. These are sold to golf 
courses.
    (B) ``Personal golf car'' means a golf car used to carry one or 
more people and may carry golf equipment to play golf. These are sold 
to individual people who may use them to travel on public roads to and 
from golf courses and to play golf, to travel on public roads on 
purposes unrelated to golf, or for all of these purposes.
    ``Speed-modified golf car'' means a conventional golf car that was 
modified, after its original manufacture, so as to increase its speed. 
While some speed-modified golf cars have a top speed of 20 to 25 miles 
per hour, others have a higher top speed. That modification may 
currently be accompanied by the addition of safety equipment required 
for the on-road use of the golf car.
    ``Neighborhood electric vehicle'' means any 4-wheeled electric 
vehicle whose top speed is not greater than 25 miles per hour. Some of 
these vehicles look more like a passenger car than a conventional golf 
car.
    ``Low-speed vehicle'' means any 4-wheeled motor vehicle whose top 
speed is greater than 20 miles per hour, but not greater than 25 miles 
per hour. This group includes neighborhood electric vehicles, and 
speed-modified golf cars, whose top speed is greater than 20 miles per 
hour, but not greater than 25 miles per hour.

II. Executive Summary

A. The Final Rule

    Since 1966, NHTSA has been directed by the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act (``Vehicle Safety Act'') (now codified as 49 
U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards 
(FMVSSs) for motor vehicles and to ensure that those standards are 
appropriate for each class of motor vehicle to which they apply. 49 
U.S.C. 30111(a) and (b)(3). As the vehicles within a class evolve in 
design or use or as the size of a class changes substantially relative 
to the sizes of other classes, the standards applicable to that class 
typically must evolve to keep pace with changing safety needs and 
priorities. For example, the substantial increase in the number of 
passenger vans and other types of light trucks and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles (and the increase in the personal use of these 
vehicles) in the 1980's led the agency to extend the requirements for 
passenger cars to those classes of vehicles. More recently, the 
increasing size and prevalence of sport utility vehicles has led the 
agency to examine the compatibility of those vehicles and smaller 
vehicles and review the standards applicable to those vehicles. 
Similarly, the appearance of new vehicles, such as electric vehicles 
and compressed natural gas vehicles, has made it necessary for the 
agency to issue new requirements tailored to the particular anticipated 
safety issues associated with those vehicles.
    This rulemaking involves another instance in which the agency is 
called upon to adjust its standards to reflect changes in the vehicle 
population. Transportation needs are changing as the number of 
retirement and other planned communities grow. These communities are 
particularly numerous in the southern tier or Sunbelt states such as 
California, Arizona, and Florida. 2 Many residents within 
these communities do not need or want a conventional motor vehicle like 
a passenger car to make short trips to visit friends, to run errands, 
or, if they are golfers, to go to the golf course. They prefer to use a 
smaller, 4-wheeled vehicle with limited-speed capability, such as a 
golf car, that is less costly and, if electric, emission free.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Some of the better known and most frequently-reported on 
examples of golf car communities are the City of Palm Desert, 
California, Sun City and Sun City West, Arizona, Peachtree City, 
Georgia (golf car operation there is restricted to dedicated paths), 
and Sun City Center and The Villages of Lady Lake, Florida.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For years, a common practice among those relatively few states then 
permitting on-road use of golf cars was to allow such use only within a 
specified distance (generally ranging from \1/2\ mile to 2 miles) from 
a golf course. ``Golf carts'' were defined by several of the states as 
having a top speed of 15 miles per hour or less.
    In recent years, however, a growing number of states from 
California to Florida have passed legislation eliminating or 
establishing exceptions to the requirement that the on-road use of golf 
cars be in the vicinity of a golf course and authorizing their local 
jurisdictions to permit general on-road use of ``golf carts,'' subject 
to speed and/or operational limitations.3 Nine of the 12 
states now authorizing general on-road use condition such broader use 
upon the golf cars' meeting requirements for safety equipment. In all, 
16 states 4 now have laws authorizing their local 
governments to

[[Page 33196]]

permit golf cars either to be used generally on public streets 
designated by local governments (12 states) or within the vicinity of 
golf courses or a person's residence (4 states).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ State laws regarding the on-road use of golf cars appear to 
have gradually evolved in the last 15-20 years, particularly in the 
last 5 years, so as to expand the extent to which golf cars can be 
used on public roads. Several distinct stages of evolution are 
discernible:
     permitting golf car operators to cross public roads 
cutting through golf course;
     permitting golf cars to be used on roads in vicinity of 
golf course to make trips to and from golf course within golf 
community;
     permitting golf car use on roads designated by local 
governments; and
     permitting use of NEVs and golf cars with top speed of 
up to 25 miles per hour.
    Some states have progressed through several stages in sequence, 
while others have apparently skipped the first several stages and 
begun with one of the latter stages.
    \4\ Twelve states have a law permitting all-purpose trips with 
potentially broad areas: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, 
Georgia, Illinois (awaiting governor's signature), Iowa, Minnesota, 
Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and Wyoming. One state has a law 
permitting all-purpose trips within vicinity of a person's 
residence: South Carolina. Three states have a law permitting trips 
to and from golf course: Arkansas, Oregon and Wisconsin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, three states have changed their laws to reflect the 
existence of sub-25 mph vehicles that are faster than almost all golf 
cars. They have either replaced an old statutory provision defining 
``golf carts'' as having a top speed up to 15 miles per hour with a new 
one defining them as having a top speed up to 25 miles per hour 
5 or have added a new class of vehicles, ``neighborhood 
electric vehicles,'' also capable of achieving 25 miles per 
hour.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For the purpose of statutory provisions relating to golf car 
transportation plans, 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.'' California Streets & Highways Code 
Sec. 1951. (For all other purposes, California Vehicle Code Sec. 345 
continues to define ``golf carts'' as ``a motor vehicle .  .  .  . 
which is designed to be and is operated at not more than 15 miles 
per hour .  .  .'') Arizona has a definition similar to Sec. 1951, 
except that it specifies an unladen weight of less than 1,800 pounds 
and a capability of carrying not more than four persons, including 
the driver. A.R.S. Sec. 28-101(22).
    \6\ Arizona defines a ``neighborhood electric vehicle'' as an 
emission free motor vehicle with at least 4 wheels in contact with 
the ground and an unladen vehicle weight of less than 1,800 pounds 
that is designed to be and is operated at no more than 25 mph and is 
designed to carry no more than four persons. A.R.S. Sec. 28-101(32). 
Colorado has a similar term and definition. C.R.S 42-1-102 (60.5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to meeting a transportation need of these communities, 
sub-25 mph vehicles also help them meet some of their environmental 
goals. These vehicles are energy-efficient. Further, many of them are 
battery-powered, and thus emission free and quiet. To the extent that 
emission-free vehicles replace conventional vehicles powered by 
internal combustion engines, they help state and local officials in 
meeting ambient air quality standards under the Clean Air Act. For 
example, the City of Palm Desert, California, estimates that it has 
achieved an emissions reduction of 16 tons of carbon monoxide annually 
since implementing its program allowing golf cars to use the public 
streets. Further, as noted by the Economic Development Department of 
Arizona Public Service, the state's largest utility company, the use of 
electric vehicles also produces reductions in emissions of 
hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxide, and carbon dioxide.
    There is currently a Federal regulatory barrier to the manufacture 
and sale of a segment of the sub-25 mph vehicle group. Under 
longstanding agency interpretations, vehicles used on public roads are 
regarded by this agency as ``motor vehicles'' within the meaning of the 
Vehicle Safety Act if they have a top speed greater than 20 miles per 
hour. If sub-25 mph passenger-carrying vehicles have a top speed 
exceeding 20 miles per hour, they are classified in the same manner as 
much faster and larger motor vehicles (i.e., as passenger cars). 
Further, they are subject to the same FMVSSs developed to meet the 
particular safety needs of passenger cars. Since the application of 
these FMVSSs to these sub-25 mph passenger-carrying vehicles would 
necessitate the addition of a considerable amount of structure, weight 
and cost, such application appears to preclude their production and 
sale. In addition, given the limited-speed capability and relatively 
controlled operating environments of these vehicles, it does not 
currently appear necessary from a safety standpoint to design them to 
meet the full range of passenger car FMVSSs, especially those 
incorporating dynamic crash requirements.
    This rulemaking eliminates the conflict between the state and local 
laws, on the one hand, and the Federal requirements, on the other, by 
removing these sub-25 mph vehicles with a top speed range of 20 to 25 
miles per hour from the passenger car class of motor vehicles and 
placing them in a new class subject to its own set of safety 
requirements.7 As noted above in the summary section, the 
new class is called low-speed vehicles (LSV). LSVs include any 4-
wheeled vehicle, other than a truck, with a maximum speed greater than 
20 miles per hour, but not greater than 25 miles per hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This action is analogous to the agency's decision in 1968 to 
regulate small, low-powered motorcycles differently than larger, 
higher-powered motorcycles. To implement this decision, the agency 
established a subclass of motorcycles called ``motor-driven 
cycles.'' NHTSA then determined which of the requirements in the 
safety standards for the larger, higher-powered motorcycles would be 
appropriate for application to motor-driven cycles. The agency 
excluded motor-driven cycles from some requirements, while making 
them subject to other requirements. By means of this tailoring, the 
agency effectively balanced its responsibilities to assure that its 
standards:
     protect the public from unreasonable risk, and
     are practicable and appropriate for the particular 
vehicle type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are currently two types of vehicles that will qualify as 
LSVs. One type is the golf car. All conventional golf cars, as now 
originally manufactured, have a top speed of less than 20 miles per 
hour, and thus, do not meet the speed capability threshold for LSVs. 
However, some conventional golf cars are modified so as to go more than 
20 miles per hour. Those speed-modified golf cars whose top speed is 
between 20 and 25 miles per hour qualify as LSVs. Similarly, there is a 
very small number of originally manufactured custom golf cars that are 
not modified conventional golf cars and that have a top speed above 20 
miles per hour. Some of them look very much like passenger cars. Those 
custom golf cars with a top speed between 20 and 25 miles per hour 
qualify as LSVs.
    The other vehicles that will qualify as an LSV are so-called 
``Neighborhood Electric Vehicles'' or ``NEVs.'' Current NEVs are bigger 
and heavier, and have more superstructure than golf cars. Further, as 
originally manufactured, current NEVs have top speeds of 25 miles per 
hour. However, like golf cars, they do not have doors, and thus have 
neither heating systems nor air conditioners.
    LSVs will be subject to a new FMVSS, Standard No. 500, Low-Speed 
Vehicles, established by this final rule. This standard is being issued 
in recognition of the fact that the growing on-road use of golf cars 
has already resulted in some deaths and serious injuries. The agency 
has information indicating that there were 16 deaths of golf car 
occupants on the public roads from 1993 to 1997. The standard's 
requirements are based primarily upon a regulation that the City of 
Palm Desert, California, established in 1993 for golf car owners 
seeking to register their golf cars for use on the city's streets. The 
new FMVSS requires LSVs to be equipped with basic items of safety 
equipment: headlamps, stop lamps, turn signal lamps, taillamps, reflex 
reflectors, parking brake, windshields of either type AS-1 or type AS-5 
glazing, rearview mirrors, seat belts and vehicle identification 
numbers (VINs).
    In view of the uncertainty among commenters about compliance 
responsibilities under Standard No. 500, the agency wants to clarify 
the responsibilities of each group of interested parties.8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Manufacturers of custom golf cars, dealers and other 
commercial entities that modify golf cars, and manufacturers of NEVs 
may wish to obtain a copy of NHTSA regulations (in Title 49 Code of 
Federal Regulations Parts 400-999 revised as of October 1, 1997, 
available from a U.S. Government Bookstore). Among other things, 
these parties will need to obtain a VIN identifier from the Society 
of Automotive Engineers, as specified in Part 565. They will also 
have to prepare and affix certification labels in accordance with 
Part 567 when their low-speed vehicles have been conformed and are 
ready for sale. Finally, they must file an identification statement 
that meets the requirements of Part 566 not later than 30 days after 
beginning manufacture of a low-speed vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Manufacturers of conventional golf cars. Golf car 
manufacturers have no

[[Page 33197]]

compliance responsibilities so long as they continue their current 
practice of limiting the top speed of their golf cars, as originally 
manufactured, to less than 20 miles per hour.
     Manufacturers of custom golf cars. Manufacturers of custom 
golf cars are subject to Standard No. 500 if the top speed of their 
vehicles is between 20 and 25 miles per hour and to the FMVSSs for 
passenger cars if their top speed is above 25 miles per hour.
     Dealers and other commercial entities that modify golf 
cars. If dealers and other commercial entities modify conventional golf 
cars so that their top speed is increased to between 20 and 25 miles 
per hour, those dealers and entities must conform the modified golf 
cars to Standard No. 500 and certify their compliance with that 
standard. This requirement covers all golf cars modified on or after 
the effective date of Standard No. 500, regardless of when the golf car 
was originally manufactured.
     Manufacturers of NEVs. Any manufacturer of a NEV whose top 
speed is between 20 and 25 miles per hour must ensure that the vehicle 
complies with Standard No. 500 and certify its compliance with that 
standard. This requirement covers all new NEVs manufactured on or after 
the effective date of Standard No. 500.
    In response to concerns expressed by several commenters, NHTSA 
wishes to address several matters concerning the effect that issuing 
Standard No. 500 has on state and local laws. First, as noted in the 
NPRM, this final rule does not alter the ability of states and local 
governments to decide for themselves whether to permit on-road use of 
golf cars and LSVs.
    Second, state and local governments may supplement Standard No. 500 
in some respects. They may do so by requiring the installation of and 
regulate the performance of safety equipment not required by the 
standard. However, the states and local governments may not specify 
performance requirements for the safety equipment that is required by 
the standard. The agency tentatively decided in the NPRM that LSV 
manufacturers need not comply with requirements regulating the 
performance of any items of equipment (except seat belts) required by 
the standard. Seat belts are required to meet Standard No. 209, Seat 
belt assemblies. The agency is making that decision final in this rule.
    Third, the agency notes that the issuance of Standard No. 500 does 
not require current owners of speed-modified golf cars having a top 
speed between 20 to 25 miles per hour to retrofit them with the 
equipment specified in the standard. The decision whether to require 
retrofitting of golf cars that are already on the road remains in the 
domain of state and local law.

B. Comparison of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Final Rule

    NHTSA proposed that the low-speed vehicle standard be designated 
Standard No. 100. However, since the standard contains both crash 
avoidance and crashworthiness requirements, NHTSA has decided to adopt 
a number for the new standard that is outside both the 100 series of 
standards and the 200 series of standards. The new standard will be 
known as Standard No. 500, Low-speed vehicles, 49 CFR 571.500.
    This final rule adopts, in most other respects, the standard as it 
appeared in the agency's January 8, 1997 notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) (62 FR 1077). It requires all the proposed safety equipment, 
except the warning label, and, as requested by some commenters, adds a 
requirement for a VIN. In response to comments regarding the need for 
requiring means of enhancing rear conspicuity beyond that provided by 
the proposed taillamps and stop lamps, the agency has added a 
requirement for a rear reflex reflector to help following drivers 
detect the presence of a parked or stopped LSV at night. In response to 
a request of the National Golf Car Manufacturers Association (NGCMA) 
that manufacturers be allowed to install polycarbonate windshields, the 
final rule permits a choice between either AS-5 polycarbonate glazing 
or AS-1 safety glass for LSV windshields.9 In addition, to 
provide a means for determining whether a vehicle's speed qualifies it 
as a LSV, the agency has added a test procedure for determining maximum 
vehicle speed. The procedure is based largely on the maximum speed test 
procedure in the industry standard for golf cars, 10 and on 
provisions in American Society for Testing and Materials standards 
regarding determination of pavement friction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Those types of glazing are defined in the American National 
Standard Institute's ``Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for 
Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways'' Z26.1-1977, 
January 26, 1977, as ssupplemented by Z26.1a, July 3, 1980.
    \10\ ANSI/NGCMA Z130.1-1993, ``American National Standard for 
Golf Cars--Safety and Performance Requirements.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule differs from the proposal in one other important 
respect. The standard has been amended so that it applies to a narrower 
population of vehicles. Before the issuance of the proposal, NGCMA 
represented that: (1) Its members 11 do not manufacture any 
golf cars for use on the public roads; (2) the industry standard for 
all golf cars used exclusively on golf courses specifies a maximum 
speed of 15 miles per hour; and (3) its members fully meet the industry 
standard.12 Also, at a public meeting held by the agency on 
July 25, 1996, NGCMA asked the agency to mandate speed limits not to 
exceed 15 miles per hour for golf cars on public roads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NGCMA represents the original equipment manufacturers of 95 
percent of all golf cars manufactured and distributed in the United 
States. Its four largest members, in terms of golf car production, 
are E-Z-GO, Club Car, Yamaha, and Melex.
    \12\ The golf car industry indicated at NHTSA's July 25, 1996 
public meeting that its members adhere to the standard ``100 
percent.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this information and request from NGCMA, it appeared to 
NHTSA that 15 miles per hour was the appropriate dividing line not only 
between golf cars manufactured for golf course use and those 
manufactured for both on-road use and golf course use, but also between 
conventional golf cars and speed-modified golf cars.13 The 
agency tentatively concluded that if a golf car manufacturer produced 
golf cars with a top speed capability above the industry standard, 
i.e., above 15 miles per hour, that the ``manufacturer must intend its 
vehicles to be used on public roads as well as one golf courses.'' (62 
FR 1082) Accordingly, the agency drafted the proposal to cover vehicles 
with a maximum speed capability greater than 15 miles per hour, but not 
greater than 25 miles per hour. Based on what it had been told by 
NGCMA, the agency believed that its proposal would affect virtually no 
conventional golf cars, as originally manufactured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The agency noted that there was one model of golf car whose 
top speed, as originally manufactured, reportedly exceeded 15 miles 
per hour. No information relating to the production volume of that 
model was available at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the NPRM, NHTSA has obtained new information from NGCMA. In 
response to a May 1998 inquiry by the agency, NGCMA said that 1 percent 
of Club Car's fleet golf cars, and 75 percent of its personal golf 
cars, have a top speed between 15 and 20 miles per hour.14 
Thus, contrary to the agency's expectation, the proposal would have 
applied to a significant minority of Club Car's golf cars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ NGCMA confirmed that E-Z-GO, Yamaha, and Melex do not 
produce any golf cars whose top speed exceeds 15 miles per hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this new information, the agency has decided to limit the 
application of Standard No. 500 to vehicles whose top speed is between 
20 and 25 miles per hour. This decision

[[Page 33198]]

carries out the agency's original intention of excluding virtually all 
conventional golf cars, as originally manufactured, from the standard.
    The agency also believes that 20 miles per hour is a better 
dividing line between vehicles designed for use on the golf course and 
vehicles designed for on-road use. The conventional golf cars with a 
top speed between 15 and 20 miles per hour have a body and 
understructure very similar to that of conventional golf cars with a 
top speed less than 15 miles per hour. Further, while the speed 
differential between those two groups of golf cars creates a 
significant difference in their potential crash energy, the energy in 
the 15 to 20 mile-per-hour range is still modest compared to that of 
LSVs.15 According to NGCMA, golf cars with a top speed of 
less than 15 miles per hour typically have a top speed of about 12 
miles per hour. Those with a top speed between 15 and 20 miles per hour 
are believed by the agency to have a top speed of approximately 17 to 
18 miles per hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The potential crash energy of a vehicle increases at a 
greater rate than increases in the vehicle's speed. This is because 
an object's acceleration (or deceleration) equals the mass of the 
object times the velocity squared.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The practical safety effects of raising the speed threshold do not 
appear to be extensive. Data obtained since the NPRM regarding the 
limited number of fatalities associated with on-road use of 
conventional golf cars indicate that the state and local governments 
are adequately providing for the safety of on-road users of those golf 
cars.
    However, NHTSA concludes that Federal action is needed to address 
the safety problems that the agency anticipates will be associated with 
vehicles whose top speed is between 20 and 25 miles per hour. The speed 
differential between those vehicles and the great bulk of golf cars 
whose top speed is less than 15 miles per hour is as much as 12 miles 
per hour, while the speed differential between golf cars whose top 
speed is between 15 and 20 miles per hour and slower golf cars is about 
half that, i.e., 5-6 miles per hour. The crash forces that 20 to 25 
mile-per-hour vehicles will experience are significantly greater than 
those for 15 to 20 mile-per-hour golf cars and much greater than those 
for sub-15 mile-per-hour golf cars. Those greater forces make it 
necessary to require that LSVs be equipped with more safety features 
than the states and their local jurisdictions currently require for 
conventional golf cars used on-road. Most important, it makes it 
necessary to require seats belts. Seat belts can prevent LSV occupants 
from falling out during abrupt maneuvers and prevent or reduce their 
ejection during crashes.
    Finally, vehicles with ``work performing equipment'' (i.e., certain 
trucks) would have been LSVs under the proposal, although not required 
to meet Standard No. 500. Under the final rule, these vehicles are no 
longer included LSVs and must continue to meet truck FMVSSs. This 
change is consistent with the rationale of this rulemaking, which is to 
eliminate a regulatory conflict involving passenger-carrying vehicles. 
Further, NHTSA concludes that the truck FMVSSs remain appropriate for 
trucks with a speed capability between 20 and 25 miles per hour and 
that these standards have not inhibited their introduction in the past.

III. Background

A. Introduction; Sub-25 MPH Vehicles and the Traditional Interpretation 
of ``Motor Vehicles''

    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. A ``motor vehicle'' is a vehicle ``manufactured 
primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways'' 49 
U.S.C. 30102(a)(6). The agency's interpretations of this term have 
centered around the meaning of the word ``primarily.'' The agency has 
generally interpreted the term 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 from 1969, and addressed the status of mini-bikes. 
NHTSA said that it would initially defer to the manufacturer's judgment 
that a vehicle was not a ``motor vehicle.'' However, the agency said, 
the decision and subjective state of mind of the manufacturer ``* * * 
cannot be conclusive * * *.'' NHTSA said that to resolve the question 
of whether a particular vehicle is a motor vehicle, it would

invoke the familiar principle that the purpose for which an act, 
such as the production of a vehicle, is undertaken may be discerned 
from the actor's conduct in the light of the surrounding 
circumstances. Thus, if a vehicle is operationally capable of being 
used on public thoroughfares, and if in fact, a substantial 
proportion of the consumer public actually uses [it] in that way, it 
is a ``motor vehicle'' without regard to the manufacturer's intent, 
however manifested. In such a case, it would be incumbent upon a 
manufacturer of such a vehicle either to alter the vehicle's design, 
configuration, and equipment to render it unsuitable for on-road use 
or, by compliance with applicable motor vehicle safety standards, to 
render the vehicle safe for use on public streets, roads, and 
highways.

(October 3, 1969; 34 F.R. 15147)
    To resolve borderline cases, NHTSA set forth criteria that it said 
it would employ in determining whether a particular vehicle is a 
``motor vehicle.'' The agency stated:

[p]erhaps the most important of these [criteria] is whether state 
and local laws permit the vehicle in question to be used and 
registered for use on public highways. The nature of the 
manufacturer's promotional and marketing activities is also evidence 
of the use for which the vehicle is manufactured.

    Noting the comparative rarity of mini-bike use on public streets, 
and that the registration of mini-bikes for use on public streets was 
precluded by laws of most jurisdictions unless they were equipped with 
Standard No.108-type lighting devices, NHTSA said it would not consider 
mini-bikes to be ``motor vehicles'' if their manufacturers met the 
following criteria:

(1) Do not equip them with devices and accessories that render them 
lawful for use and registration for use on public highways under 
state and local laws;
(2) Do not otherwise participate or assist in making the vehicles 
lawful for operation on public roads (as by furnishing certificates 
of origin or other title document, unless those documents contain a 
statement that the vehicle was not manufactured for use on public 
streets, roads, or highways);
(3) Do not advertise or promote them as vehicles suitable for use on 
public roads;
(4) Do not generally market them through retail dealers of motor 
vehicles; and
(5) Affix to the mini-bikes a notice stating in substance that the 
vehicles were not manufactured for use on public streets, roads, or 
highways and warning operators against such use.

    The agency's interpretations since 1969 have added new elements to 
the mini-bike criteria for determining whether vehicles capable of on-
road use are ``motor vehicles.'' The most important exclude vehicles 
that have ``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 ``motor vehicles.'' 
These features included an oval-shaped passenger compartment, taillamps 
built into headrests, and a configuration the

[[Page 33199]]

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.

B. 1996 Request for Regulatory Relief

    In the spring of 1996, Bombardier, Inc., asked NHTSA to make 
regulatory changes to permit the introduction of a new class of 4-
wheeled vehicle that is small, relatively slow-moving, and low-cost. 
The company had identified retirement communities in the Sunbelt states 
as likely prospects for a NEV that it was developing. Bombardier's NEV 
is a two-passenger vehicle, closed at the top but open at the sides, 
intended for use on city streets at speeds up to 25 miles per hour. It 
looks very much like a very small passenger car. The Bombardier NEV 
will be available with a ``low speed golf mode'' option that reduces 
the vehicle's maximum speed to 15 miles per hour when the ignition key 
is turned from ``D''(rive) to ``G''(olf). However, because Bombardier's 
NEV would have been classified as a passenger car under the agency's 
existing interpretations and regulations and because its NEV could not 
meet the FMVSSs for passenger cars, Bombardier could not offer its 
small vehicle for sale in the United States.
    Accordingly, Bombardier asked the agency to change its longstanding 
interpretations of what constitutes a motor vehicle as they apply to 4-
wheeled vehicles. Under those interpretations, vehicles that were used 
on-road, but that had a distinctive configuration setting them apart 
from the normal traffic flow and that were not capable of exceeding 20 
miles per hour, were not regarded as motor vehicles. The company asked 
that the maximum speed threshold used in the agency's interpretations 
be increased from 20 miles to 25 miles per hour. Bombardier stated that 
limiting the top speed of its NEV to 20 miles per hour would compromise 
the ability of the NEV to maneuver in traffic on public streets where 
it would be operating in a mix with larger and faster vehicles, and 
limit the marketability of the NEV. Accordingly, it sought a revision 
of the NHTSA interpretation instead.

C. Pre-rulemaking Study and 1996 Public Meetings

    Since the use of sub-25 mph vehicles on public roads was a 
relatively new phenomenon, NHTSA took special steps to acquire 
information regarding such use. First, the agency commenced a survey of 
state laws regarding the use of golf cars on public roads. NHTSA found 
that the statutes of various states, e.g., California, Arizona, and 
Florida, gave local governments the authority to allow the use of 
``golf carts'' on public streets. California has authorized all of its 
cities and counties 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.'' Each plan must include minimum 
design criteria for safety features on golf carts as well. Arizona 
provides for registration of both NEVs and golf cars, each of which is 
defined as a vehicle with a maximum speed of not more than 25 miles per 
hour, and forbids NEVs from being driven on public roads with posted 
speed limits higher than 35 miles per hour. Florida has no speed 
restrictions for golf cars, but requires them to be equipped with 
``efficient brakes, reliable steering apparatus, safe tires, a rearview 
mirror, and red reflectorized warning devices in both the front and 
rear.'' That state permits operation of golf cars on county roads which 
have been designated by a county for use by golf cars, or on city 
streets which have been so designated by a city. Golf cars cannot be 
operated during the hours between sunset and sunrise under California 
and Florida law, except that local entities may allow nighttime use of 
golf cars equipped with headlamps, taillamps and stop lamps.
    NHTSA decided to study the California statutes in detail because 
that state appeared to have the most extensive requirements concerning 
the on-road safety of golf cars. In 1992, California amended its 
Streets and Highway Code (``CSHC'') to authorize the City of Palm 
Desert to establish a Golf Cart Transportation Pilot Program (CSHC 
Secs. 1930-37), and later adopted amendments to giving similar 
authority to any city or county in California. As noted above, this 
legislation allows local jurisdictions to establish a Golf Cart 
Transportation Plan area in which golf cars 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 cars as well (CSHC 1961).
    A plan under the California law must also include a permit process 
for golf cars to ensure that they meet the minimum design criteria 
(CSHC 1961). At that time, those criteria were required to include seat 
belts. \16\ Also, the California law requires an operator to have a 
valid California driver's license and carry a minimum amount of 
insurance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The requirement for seat belts was replaced in September 
1997 by a provision authorizing, but not requiring golf cart 
transportation plans to include a requirement for seat belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the law requires a plan to allow only golf cars 
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.''
    Pursuant to this law, the City of Palm Desert drew up and 
implemented a golf car transportation plan. As required by then 
existing state law, the plan included a requirement for seat belts. 
NHTSA has been informed by the City of Palm Desert that this plan will 
cover NEVs as well as golf cars.
    Under that plan, there are three classes of golf car facilities:
     A ``Class I Golf Cart Path,'' completely separated from 
public roads, for use by golf cars and bicycles only.
     A ``Class II Golf Cart Lane,'' marked on public roads with 
posted speed limits up to 45 miles per hour (the separate lane is 
designated by striping), for use by golf cars and bicycles only.
     A ``Class III Golf Cart Route,'' i.e., public roads with 
speed limits of 25 miles per hour or less (the route is identified by 
placing Golf Cart Route signs along roadways). They are for shared use 
by golf cars and automobile traffic.
    To gather further information, NHTSA held a public meeting on July 
18, 1996, in the City of Palm Desert, attended by state, county, and 
city officials from both California and Arizona, golf car 
manufacturers, owners, a dealer, and two NEV manufacturers.
    Fourteen commenters spoke at the meeting, all expressing support 
for the use of small, 4-wheeled electric vehicles on city streets 
because of environmental enhancement, consumer benefits, and a good 
safety record.
    The first speaker was Roy Wilson, representing the fourth district 
of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, a member of the governing 
board of the South Coast Air Quality Management District and a member 
of the Riverside County Transportation Commission. He asked for NHTSA's 
``approval in allowing Neighborhood Electric Vehicles and other slow-
moving vehicles to operate on public roadways and to increase the 
maximum speed limit to 25 miles an hour.'' Supervisor

[[Page 33200]]

Wilson advised the panel that ``you have a unique opportunity to 
provide leadership in an area of public policy which has both 
transportation and air quality ramifications and which directly 
addresses the lifestyle of our growing senior population.'' With 
respect to the golf car program, which was established when he was a 
member of the City of Palm Desert Council, Supervisor Wilson stated 
that

it has reduced congestion on city streets, provided affordable user 
friendly alternatives to transportation needs, and based on this 
experience as well as those in areas--programs that are similar in 
areas like Davis [California]; Sun City, Arizona and Lady Lake, 
Florida, I believe this program has tremendous potential.

    Supervisor Wilson stated that favorable action by NHTSA

would expand the pool of electric vehicles which * * * from an 
environmental, primarily air quality perspective, * * * are also 
extremely beneficial. They do not emit toxins including carbon 
monoxide into the air.

    He was followed by Ramon Diaz, the city manager of the City of Palm 
Desert. Mr. Diaz told the panel that ``the golf cart program has been 
very successful * * * Areas of the city that are being annexed in are 
asking us, `When can we have our golf cart lanes? When can we begin 
driving our golf carts?'''
    The next commenter, Commander Steven Bloomquist of the Palm Desert 
Section, Riverside Sheriff's Office, spoke ``from a law enforcement 
perspective.'' Initially, there were concerns

about the mixing of slower 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.

    However, Commander Bloomquist had been reassured after his three 
year experience with the program:

To date * * * we have not had any accidents involving the larger 
vehicles which move at a greater speed with the slower moving golf 
carts.

    Assemblyman James F. Battin, Jr., represented by his district 
manager Kim Estock, addressed the importance of alternative 
transportation for senior citizens:

With a limited income comprised of social security and perhaps a 
small retirement fund, some seniors have been able to cut the cost 
of an automobile with insurance out of their budget altogether 
because of the option of using an electric vehicle with a one time 
purchase cost.

    The California commenters were supported by those from Arizona, 
beginning with R. H. Stranger, regional manager of Southern California 
Edison for Coachella Valley. Mr. Stranger was followed by David 
Bentler, Electric Transportation Project Manager for the largest 
electric utility in Arizona (Arizona Public Service Economic and 
Community Development). Mr. Bentler showed a video in which the 
affordability, accessibility, and utility of the NEV were promoted by 
the [unidentified] executive director of the homeowners association of 
Westport Village as well as by the Village's recreational office 
manager, Donna Highley, two Village residents, Joan and Larry Thomas, 
Jerry Unger, a director of the Sun City Homeowners' Association, and 
Ray Prendergast of the Sierra Club.
    Arizona golf car dealer, Steve Pohle of Sun City, spoke in favor of 
allowing the vehicles he sells to use the public roads at speeds up to 
25 miles per hour. He said that

(i)t is [a speed] that many of our customers obtain now with their 
golf carts and are doing it safely. I think the biggest advantage of 
that speed is the ability to be able to, after stopping at an 
intersection or wherever they are traveling, * * * quickly maneuver 
out of the way of traffic.

    The agency held another public meeting in Washington, D.C., on July 
25, 1996. At that meeting, NGCMA indicated its objection to the 
requirement in the California statutes and in the City of Palm Desert 
plan for seat belts. NGCMA viewed the requirement as ``antithetical to 
the personal safety of drivers and occupants of golf cars.'' The 
association thought that legislative bodies have ``a very limited 
understanding of the physical limitations of the golf car as it 
presently is constructed and the consequent susceptibility for personal 
injury and even death, if seat belts were to be required.'' NGCMA 
apprised the panel of the industry's standard, ANSI/NGCMA Z130.1-1993. 
It presented reasons why the industry believed that a golf car should 
not be considered a ``motor vehicle,'' i.e., it stated that golf cars 
are designed primarily for use on golf courses and not the public 
streets. The association noted that the industry does not equip golf 
cars with equipment that make them lawful for registration and use on 
the public roads. It argued that accordingly if an owner chooses to 
operate a golf car on the public roads, the manufacturer should not be 
penalized for it. NGCMA further stated that ``(t)he maximum recommended 
speed for golf cars under ANSI/NGCMA Z130.1 is 15 miles per hour.'' In 
addition, it stated that ``the golf car manufacturers believe that any 
speed in excess of 15 miles per hour begins to approach problems with 
stability, and increases the risk of injury or death on account of the 
loss of stability and increased braking distance.'' (Transcript, July 
25, 1996, p. 15)
    Given NHTSA's developing interest, NGCMA asked that the agency 
consider the following:

(1) Initiate steps to preempt all state and local regulation of golf 
cars on public roads * * * until a thorough investigation and 
analysis has been made of the safety issues and optimum responses to 
these issues;
(2) Mandate speed limits not to exceed 15 miles per hour for any 
golf car used on public streets and highways;
(3) Solicit from the golf car manufacturers recommendations for 
safety accessories that might be utilized or recommended for golf 
cars whose owners desire to utilize their golf cars on public 
streets and highways;
(4) Advise NGCMA of what additional signage or documentation, if 
any, should preferably be furnished golf car purchasers to ensure 
the purchaser understands the golf car was not manufactured for use 
on public streets * * * and cautioning operators against such use 
unless the vehicle is equipped with whatever minimum requirements 
might be deemed appropriate by NHTSA;
(5) Consider defining and regulating light-weight vehicles capable 
of being driven on public roads as * * * NEVs, to distinguish NEVs 
from golf cars which are self-regulated pursuant to ANSI/NGCMA 
Z130.1. References to ``golf cars'' as such should be deleted from 
any state and federal laws and regulations dealing with motor 
vehicles.

    Further, NGCMA said that NHTSA ``needs to preempt state and local 
initiatives on this subject until NHTSA has clearly identified the 
safety issues and appropriate responses to these issues in a cautious 
and careful manner.''
    NHTSA had also asked for written comments from those who could not 
attend its public meetings. The commenters included representatives of 
state and local governments including law enforcement officials, 
manufacturers and users of NEVs and golf cars, representatives of 
utilities, a public interest group, and other interested persons. 
Specifically, 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

[[Page 33201]]

Corporation,\17\ Jim Douglas (assistant director, Motor Vehicle 
Division, Arizona Department of Transportation, the written remarks of 
the NGCMA general counsel, several video tapes, Dr. James M. Lents 
(executive officer, South Coast Air Quality Management District), 
George Boal (resident of the City of Palm Desert), Marilyn D. 
McLaughlin (resident of the City 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, E-Z-GO Textron 
(``E-Z-GO''), 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ After Trans2 submitted comments on the notice of proposed 
rulemaking in this proceeding, its assets were purchased by Global 
Electric MotorCars (GEM) of Fargo, North Dakota.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In brief, the governmental authorities and the public supported the 
on-road use of electric golf cars and NEVs as addressing the public 
interest in a cleaner environment. Users noted approvingly the mobility 
that is afforded by the ability to use golf cars and NEVs on the public 
roads as an alternative to the passenger car for short in-town trips. 
These groups testified to the absence of any on-road safety problems 
involving golf cars and opposed any regulation by NHTSA that would 
curtail driving them on the public roads, or that would increase their 
costs. Golf car manufacturers objected to the possible classification 
of their products as ``motor vehicles'' and wished to remain free of 
Federal regulation.

D. Regulatory Options Considered

    After considering the results of its survey of state and local 
locals and its public meetings, the agency identified three options for 
responding to Bombardier's request. The first was to grant Bombardier's 
request to revise the agency's interpretive test for determining 
whether an on-road vehicle is a motor vehicle by raising the threshold 
top speed capability from 20 miles per hour to 25 miles per hour. This 
option had a number of drawbacks. If the agency had granted 
Bombardier's request, it would have placed LSVs beyond its regulatory 
reach. This would have been undesirable from a safety standpoint since, 
as noted above, there appeared to be a greater need for Federal action 
with respect to LSVs than with respect to slower vehicles. Further, by 
relinquishing its jurisdiction over these vehicles, NHTSA would have 
lost the flexibility to adjust its LSV regulatory actions in response 
to any changes in the safety record of those vehicles. Finally, this 
approach would have allowed the states to adopt differing requirements 
for the same aspects of safety performance, vitiating the intent of 
Congress that motor vehicles be subject to a uniform national set of 
Federal safety standards. For these reasons, NHTSA decided not to grant 
Bombardier's request.
    The second option was to maintain the existing line of 
interpretations and vehicle classifications, under which all vehicles 
capable of being driven at speeds of more than 20 miles per hour, 
regardless of their configuration, size or weight, are treated as 
``motor vehicles'' and are subject to the same safety performance 
requirements. But simply leaving the current interpretations and 
vehicle classifications in place effectively would have subjected LSVs 
to requirements they could not meet and thereby effectively prohibited 
the manufacture and sale of LSVs. Thus, this option would not be 
responsive to the growing public interest in using low-cost and low-
speed 4-wheeled vehicles within limited operating environments.
    The third option was for the agency to revise its existing system 
of vehicle classifications by creating a new class of vehicles 
comprising LSVs and applying to them new safety requirements that would 
be appropriate for and accommodate this emerging form of transportation 
while addressing its safety needs. Developing this option necessitated 
defining the new class of vehicles in such a way as to include the 
appropriate vehicles and exclude others. It appeared that standards 
applicable to current passenger cars could not, and need not, be 
applied in all aspects to LSVs, but it was not clear what standard 
should take their place. Moreover, since LSVs had not entered the 
country's motor fleet in significant numbers, there were few crash and 
injury data on which to base a judgment about the extent and nature of 
the safety need.
    Despite these challenges and uncertainties, the agency determined 
the third option to be the most prudent approach and accordingly used 
it as the basis for its proposal.

E. 1997 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    Based on the information gathered through autumn of 1996, NHTSA 
developed a proposed regulation for LSVs, a new vehicle class including 
both NEVs and golf cars with a top speed between 15 and 25 miles per 
hour. Both types of vehicles have similar design and operational 
characteristics and are likely to have common safety problems. As such, 
NHTSA decided that the issues of the proper regulatory treatment for 
them should be considered together.
    The basic jurisdictional issue was how to differentiate between 
golf cars that were manufactured exclusively for use on golf courses 
and those that are being permitted by states and municipalities to be 
operated as on-road vehicles. NHTSA tentatively decided to adopt a 
speed criterion to address this question. The industry's standard 
Z130.1, which applies to all golf cars, contains a specification for 
``Maximum vehicle speed ``(paragraph 9.6.1) under which ``(t)he average 
speed [of runs in opposite directions] shall not exceed 15 mi/h (24 km/
h)'' (paragraph 9.6.1.3). Further, NGCMA stated at the July 25, 1996 
public meeting that its primary activity since its inception had been 
the promotion and sponsorship of standard Z130.1 and that 100 percent 
of its members adhered to it. Accordingly, the record before the agency 
at the time of its proposal indicated that if a golf car could go 
faster than 15 miles per hour, the maximum speed permitted by the 
industry standard for golf cars to be used solely on golf courses, the 
golf car was not only more likely to be driven on the public streets 
than slower golf cars, but was intended by its manufacturer to be so 
used. For these reasons, NHTSA chose a maximum speed capability of 15 
miles per hour to distinguish between golf cars truly manufactured for 
exclusive golf course use, and faster golf cars that might properly be 
considered ``motor vehicles'' for purposes of Federal safety 
regulation.
    In considering what safety equipment to propose requiring, NHTSA 
reviewed the requirements of the states and municipalities for golf 
cars to be used on the public roads, and found them

[[Page 33202]]

varied and sometimes unclear. The exception was the City of Palm 
Desert. The city requires ``golf carts'' offered for registration for 
on-road use to be equipped with headlamps, front and rear turn signal 
lamps, taillamps, stop lamps, rear side reflex reflectors, rearview 
mirrors, a parking brake, horn, windshield, and seat belts.
    Since a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must be ``reasonable, 
practicable, and appropriate'' for the types of motor vehicles to which 
it applies, NHTSA reviewed the record to see whether imposition of the 
City of Palm Desert equipment requirements would be reasonable, 
practicable and appropriate for golf cars and NEVs. Steve Pohle had 
told the NHTSA panel at the meeting in the City of Palm Desert that 
Arizona requires street-legal golf cars to have head lamps, stop lamps, 
taillamps, a horn, and a rearview mirror. He added, ``the majority of 
the [golf] cars I was speaking about are all equipped that way, so if 
they are using it on the street * * * they are equipped that way. We 
also always equip them, although it's not required by the state, with a 
Plexiglass windshield.'' In reply to a question as to the difference in 
cost ``between a cart equipped versus a cart not equipped,'' Mr. Pohle 
estimated ``* * * about $400 if we're including the windshield which 
would be about $115 of that.'' The NEV manufacturers represented that 
their vehicles would be manufactured from the start with all the 
equipment required by the City of Palm Desert.
    Accordingly, NHTSA considered the requirements of the City of Palm 
Desert to be an appropriate basis for a proposed Federal safety 
standard for LSVs. It was reasonable and appropriate because NEVs were 
designed to comply from the start, and testimony indicated that the 
equipment was easily added to existing golf car designs. It seemed 
practicable because there was testimony that new vehicles could be 
equipped at reasonable cost. It addressed the need for safety because 
the experience of the City of Palm Desert had indicated that on-road 
safety problems were virtually nonexistent.
    Therefore, NHTSA proposed that LSVs (defined in the proposal as 
golf cars with maximum speeds between 15 and 25 miles per hour, and all 
vehicles other than motorcycles and vehicles with work-performing 
equipment, with a top speed of not more than 25 miles per hour), be 
equipped with the same equipment required by the City of Palm Desert. 
(January 8, 1997; 62 FR 1077) There were several minor differences. 
First, NHTSA proposed that the windshield be of AS-1 glazing, the type 
that is found in passenger cars. Second, NHTSA did not propose that 
LSVs be equipped with horns. No other FMVSS requires the installation 
of horns because motor vehicles were equipped with horns long before 
the first FMVSS was issued. NHTSA believed that LSV manufacturers would 
similarly incorporate horns as a matter of course. Third, the agency 
proposed to require a label indicating that LSVs should not be driven 
at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour on any road. NHTSA proposed 
that the new standard be designated ``Standard No. 100.''

F. Summary of Comments on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    Over 100 comments were received from three major groups: elected 
national, state, and local officials; golf car manufacturers and 
dealers; and advocacy groups. (NHTSA's Docket Room has assigned a 
number to each comment. For example, the 20th comment is denoted ``96-
65-NO1-020.'' For simplicity, in discussing specific submissions in 
this preamble to the final rule, the agency uses only the last three 
digits to identify the comment, i.e., ``020.'')
1. State and Local Officials; Utilities
    State and local officials, with one exception, supported the 
proposal. These included Ralph E. Ogden, Yuma County (AZ) Sheriff's 
Office (002); Rollie K. Seebert, Maricopa County (CA) Sheriff (005); 
Richard S. Kelly, Mayor, City of Palm Desert (CA)(006); D.O. Helmick 
(California Highway Patrol (013); Dottie Berger, Commissioner, 
Hillsborough (FL) (014); Michael D. Branham, Assistant City Manager, 
Surprise (AZ)(015); Assemblyman Jim Battin (CA)(019); David Guthrie, 
Arizona Department of Commerce (021); Ted Hidinger, Electric 
Transportation Manager, Arizona Public Service Economic Development 
Department (026); Lois Wolk, Mayor, Davis (CA)(027); L. Denno, 
California Highway Patrol (028); Nancy J. Deller, Deputy Director, 
California Energy Commission (036), Richard D. Lamm, former Governor, 
Colorado (056); Pamela Bass, Vice President, Southern California Edison 
(061); Robert H. Cross, Chief Mobile Source Control Division, 
California Air Resources Board (80); and Kirk Brown, Secretary, 
Illinois Department of Transportation (088).
    The principal reasons for supporting the proposal were the 
enhancement of air quality that electric-powered LSVs would bring, and 
the importance of developing alternative forms of transportation. This 
was most cogently expressed by David Guthrie, Deputy Director, Arizona 
Department of Commerce (021), who said:

NEV's * * * provide an affordable, environmentally friendly 
alternative to gasoline powered automobiles that is consistent with 
our goal of promoting ``cleaner'' vehicles without hampering 
economic growth or putting undue financial burdens on our citizens.
We believe the proposed rule is appropriate for three reasons. 
First, it allows local and state governments to continue to regulate 
the use of these vehicles, giving them the ability to set speed 
zones, require specialized lanes and establish other requirements as 
appropriate. Second, the draft rule [would require] manufacturers to 
equip LSVs with basic safety features like seat belts and mirrors. 
Finally, the rule sends a strong message to states that their 
alternative vehicle policies are being received with respect and 
support in Washington * * *.

    The one exception was C. I. MacGillvray, Director, Department of 
Engineering, Iowa Department of Transportation (022) who expressed 
concern ``at the State level'' for the changes ``required to safely 
integrate these vehicles into legal operations on Iowa's public 
roadways,'' citing licensing of operators, registration of vehicles, 
financial responsibility, and the like.

(B) Manufacturers and Dealers of Golf Cars and Neighborhood Electric 
Vehicles

    The two identified categories of vehicles that would be covered by 
the final rule are NEVs and golf cars. NEV manufacturers and dealers 
supported the proposed rule. Commenters included James M. Thomas, Vice 
President Sales and Marketing, Trans2 Corporation (007); Bombardier 
Corporation through its outside counsels Paul Jackson Rice and Lawrence 
F. Henneberger (008); Charles E. Towner, a franchised dealer of 
personal and low-speed community vehicles (AZ)(030); and Delmar C. 
Gilchrist, a Trans2 dealer (CA) (034).
    The initial response of the golf car industry was to oppose the 
proposal. Comments were submitted by A. Montague Miller, president and 
CEO of Club Car, Inc. (011); the NGCMA general counsel (016); Gerald W. 
Powell, Reliability Engineer, E-Z-Go Textron, Inc. (017); Scott J. 
Stevens, President, Western Golf Car Manufacturing, Inc. (039); and 
Charles A. Fain, Vice President Design Engineering, Club Car, Inc. 
(043).
    The principal objections were to the proposed requirements for AS-1 
windshields and for seat belts. The industry asked that an alternative 
windshield material (polycarbonate) be permitted because it ``as well 
as other

[[Page 33203]]

transparent materials are more effective to provide shatterproof 
protection to occupants of golf cars.'' Seat belts were opposed in 
NGCMA's comments because they

may enhance the risk of injury or even death if the occupant is 
restrained in the vehicle by a seat belt assembly upon rollover * * 
*. Golf carts are equipped with a standard hip or hand hold 
restraint located towards the outside of the seat. However, the hand 
hold does not prevent the occupant from jumping or leaping out of 
the golf car to avoid further injury if the golf cart is about to 
roll over. For this reason, * * * in lieu of a seat belt requirement 
for golf cars, a hand hold or hip restraint should be required as 
set forth in ANSI/NGCMA Z 130.1.

    The industry also objected to the proposed effective date of 45 
days after the issuance of the final rule, saying that ``a minimum of 
24 to 36 months'' would be required ``to achieve the design and tooling 
required by the proposed standard.'' Finally, the industry submitted 
that

to properly comply with the seat belt FMVSS Standard No. 209, 
together with the other items to be required, the manufacturing cost 
to comply will exceed $800 to $1,000 per vehicle without regard to 
design and tooling expenditures approximating $500,000 per 
manufacturer.

    Golf car manufacturers and dealers apprised Members of Congress of 
their opposition to the proposal. As a result, letters of inquiry were 
received from a number of Senators and Representatives (see, e.g., 
comment 033, which was signed by six Representatives from Georgia).
3. Advocacy Organizations
    NHTSA also received comments from a number of public interest or 
advocacy organizations. These included: Consumer Federation of America 
(``CFA'')(001), Advocates for Highway & Auto Safety 
(``Advocates'')(020), Sierra Club California (032), and Washington 
Legal Foundation (``WLF'')(038).
    Sierra Club California supported the proposed rule without 
qualification. It stated that

* * * (i)t was happy to see the federal government is acting to form 
a consensus regarding the use of LSVs at the national and state 
levels. The Sierra Club California hopes that other states and 
municipalities will follow your lead in developing localized 
alternative transportation program consistent with this rule, and in 
consultation with the appropriate law enforcement and public safety 
agencies.

    It stated further that ``(a)s an alternative to automobiles, LSVs 
can reduce the number of trips by car and eliminate the need for cold 
starts, e.g., the first few minutes of operation where the majority of 
toxic emissions are generated from gasoline-powered vehicles.''
    However, the other advocacy organizations were not in favor of the 
proposal. WLF opposed subjecting LSVs to safety performance 
requirements, arguing that ``NHTSA has not shown that there is a 
problem that requires attention.'' It cites the preamble's statements 
that ``there are virtually no accident data concerning [golf cars]'' 
and ``intuitively, it appears that passengers in LSVs might be at 
significant risk because of the small size and relative fragility of 
LSVs.'' In WLF's view, ``NHTSA has not shown that any safety problem 
exists and has no justification whatsoever for implementing these 
costly and extensive regulations.'' WLF also argued that, given the 
alleged propensity of golf cars to roll over, the net effect of 
requiring seat belts could be to increase deaths and injuries.
    On the other hand, Advocates and CFA opposed allowing the 
manufacture and sale of a class of passenger vehicles subject to a 
lesser set of safety performance requirements than those applicable to 
passenger cars. Advocates opposed allowing ``a new class of motor 
vehicles on public roads which are unable to protect their occupants in 
crashes up to 25 mph.'' Advocates argued that the agency had not 
provided any documentation of the current on-road crash experience of 
golf cars, that the agency had not adequately examined the regulatory 
and safety record of allegedly similar vehicles in Japan and France, 
that there was no agency plan to organize the collection, retrieval and 
analysis of LSV crash data, and that pressure for inexpensive 
transportation and claims of environmental benefit would inevitably 
lead to the designing and marketing of LSVs that are increasingly car-
like and to future requests for the agency to increase the upper speed 
threshold for LSVs. CFA, too, thought that safety problems would arise 
with the advent of a new, small class of vehicles, and recommended that 
all vehicles with a maximum speed of 15 miles per hour or more be 
required to meet all Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
4. Other Commenters
    A number of additional comments were submitted by other persons, 
some of them supporting the proposal, others opposing it.
    Dr. Tim Lynch, Director, Center for Economic Forecasting and 
Analysis, Florida State University, concluded that promotion of 
electric vehicles would lead to fuel savings and would benefit the 
environment (023).
    Kevin Breen, Chair of the SAE Special Purpose Vehicle Committee, 
apprised the agency of SAE Standard J2258, Light Utility Vehicles, 
issued in 1996, and draft SAE J2358, Closed Community Vehicles. The 
light utility vehicles covered by SAE Standard J2258 are off-highway 
vehicles 72 inches or less in overall width, with a gross vehicle 
weight rating (GVWR) of 5,000 pounds or less and a maximum design speed 
of less than 25 miles per hour. The standard specifies requirements for 
``elements of design, operation, and maintenance.'' The Committee is 
studying ``the use of golf-car based vehicles for closed community 
applications,'' with attention to ``issues such as braking, lighting, 
crashworthiness, stability, etc.'' In his opinion, NHTSA's proposed 
standard is inappropriate because

    1. The standard permits vehicles to be operated in an on-highway 
situation in a traffic mix with typical highway vehicles without 
adequate consideration for braking, crashworthiness, etc.
    2. The proposed requirements for seat belts in an open vehicle 
are contrary to current occupant protection technology relating to 
open vehicles (i.e., motorcycles, snowmobiles, etc.).
* * * * *
    4. The exemption of certain ``work class'' vehicles from this 
standard opens acceptance of their use in a highway situation 
creating a potential hazard for both the users of those vehicles and 
the general motoring public who may interact with them.
    5. The standard as currently drafted includes too broad of a 
scope of vehicles. If adequate data exists, rulemaking could be 
limited at this time to NEVs. Vehicles such as golf car or golf-cart 
based vehicles should not be considered in proposed FMVSS 100 at 
this time.

    Two residents of Ypsilanti, Michigan questioned the wisdom of 
NHTSA's action (003, 004). Manufacturers of vehicles that are not 
``motor vehicles,'' as that term is interpreted by NHTSA, wanted 
reassurance that their products would not inadvertently be included in 
the new rule (Truck Manufacturers Association (009), Toro (012), and 
Industrial Truck Association (024)). The American Insurance Association 
claimed that NHTSA's action is an ``abuse of discretion'' because the 
agency lacks authority to dilute safety regulations and increase 
crashes, deaths and injuries. That organization argued further that the 
proposal was ``arbitrary and capricious'' because the agency lacks 
sufficient crash data to enable it to make reasonable projections about 
the safety record of LSVs. (010)

[[Page 33204]]

    Other commenters were concerned with specific aspects of the 
proposed equipment. Transportation Safety Equipment Institute argued 
that performance requirements should be specified for LSV lighting 
devices (018). George Ziolo thought that LSVs should have a flashing 
amber light at the rear or on the top as a low-speed warning (040). SMV 
Technologies sent examples of a warning triangle which some states 
require be affixed to farm tractors using the public roads, and 
recommended that LSVs be similarly equipped (068).

G. Post-Comment Period Comments and Information

1. Manufacturers and Dealers of Golf Cars; Members of Congress
    Although the comment period closed on February 24, 1997, a 
substantial number of comments were received after that date. Many of 
them were letters from Members of Congress on behalf of golf car 
manufacturers, dealers, and users. The letters from the Members of 
Congress, as well as the letters from the parties on whose behalf they 
were writing, typically expressed many of the same concerns, e.g., 
concern that the proposal would regulate fleet and personal golf cars, 
that requiring seat belts in golf cars might increase danger in a 
rollover, and that AS-1 windshields would not be sufficiently 
protective against golf balls.
    In an August 12, 1997 letter, NGCMA submitted suggested revisions 
to the agency's proposed standard. (NGCMA, 073) NGCMA suggested that 
personal golf cars be defined as vehicles that may carry golf equipment 
and have a maximum speed greater than 15, but less than 20 miles per 
hour. It suggested that personal golf cars be regulated in the same 
fashion as LSVs, except that personal golf cars would not be required 
to have seat belts. Further, NGCMA suggested that personal golf cars 
and any other LSV be permitted to have a windshield of ``shatter 
resistant polymer'' instead of AS-1 glazing.
    In a December 22, 1997 letter, NGCMA informed NHTSA its members 
were amendable to equipping personal golf cars with all of the proposed 
items of equipment, with two exceptions. NGCMA asked that its members 
not be required to install seat belts and that they be given a choice 
between using AS-1 glazing or shatter resistant polymer for the 
windshield. It indicated that an effective date of from six to twelve 
months after publication would be acceptable, provided that its 
suggestions about seat belts and windshield glazing were adopted by the 
agency. (NGCMA, 104). In the letter, that organization reaffirmed its 
desire to limit the top speed of personal golf cars to 20 miles per 
hour and indicated that the industry does not manufacture personal golf 
cars which have a higher top speed.
    During February 1998, the agency received letters from over 30 
commenters who identified themselves, generally, as dealers of golf 
carts and such other products as watercraft and motorcycles. All said 
that the issuance of a final rule was necessary for their livelihood 
and asked NHTSA to issue it immediately. These letters unqualifiedly 
supported the proposal, without stating any reservations about to the 
proposed requirements for windshields and seat belts.
    In March 1988, over 30 dealers and distributors of Club Car golf 
cars informed NHTSA that if the agency limited the seat belt 
requirement as requested by NGCMA in its December 1997 letter, they 
would not oppose the issuance of an LSV final rule. (March 20, 1998 
letter from Eileen Bradner, Counsel to Club Car, Inc.)
2. Other sources
    In February 1998, NHTSA obtained from the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission (CPSC) data concerning injuries and deaths involving golf 
car occupants. This information covers all types of golf cars, and all 
uses (on and around golf courses and on streets and highways).
    CPSC provided the agency with information from four different 
sources:
     A summary of incidents and national estimates for injuries 
involving golf cars from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance 
System (NEISS) for the years 1993 to 1997. NEISS is comprised of a 
sample of hospitals that are statistically representative of hospital 
emergency rooms nationwide. From the data collected, estimates can be 
made of the numbers of injuries associated with consumer products and 
treated in hospital emergency departments.
     A printout of crash investigations involving golf cars, 
conducted by CPSC on-site or by telephone. This information is obtained 
from NEISS files, newspaper clippings, consumer complaints and 
Underwriters Laboratory.
     A printout of reported incidents involving golf cars. The 
reports are obtained from CPSC's Medical Examiners and Coroners Alert 
Program (MECAP), Underwriters Laboratory, American Trial Lawyers 
Association, Consumers Union, and newspaper clippings.
     A printout of death certificates in which a golf car was 
mentioned. CPSC has contracts with all 50 State Health Departments to 
provide information about death certificates that mention the use of 
certain products, including golf cars.
    The agency notes that there are limits to the conclusions that can 
be drawn from these data for the purposes of this rulemaking. First, 
only the data from the first of these four sources can be used to make 
national projections about the size of health significance of the 
operation of golf cars. Second, much of the CPSC data relate to 
incidents that occurred when golf cars were being operated on a golf 
course or in other off-road situations.
    During March 1998, NHTSA's Vehicle Research Test Center (VRTC) 
conducted a study of a Bombardier NEV, a Global Electric MotorCars NEV, 
and a Yamaha golf car. As described in the study report, the study was 
intended to provide the basis for an evaluation of the potential 
stability of LSVs on public highways and the safety potential of these 
vehicles in a crash. VRTC examined the vehicles with respect to seat 
belts, stability, stopping distance, electrolyte spillage, and glazing, 
and subjected them to braking and dynamic handling tests. The seat 
belts on the NEVs were deemed to be anchored to adequate structure. The 
golf car had no seat belts. Regarding stability, the study concluded 
that an LSV with a static stability factor below 1.0 with two occupants 
could probably tip easily in a tight turn at 20 mph. As for stopping 
distance from 20 miles per hour, the Bombardier NEV easily passed the 
requirements of FMVSS No. 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems, while the 
Global Electric MotorCars NEV passed marginally. The golf car could not 
meet these requirements. With respect to the issue of electrolyte 
spillage in a crash or rollover, it was noted that the Bombardier NEV 
appeared to be capable of shielding the occupants from the batteries so 
long as the fiberglass shell was intact. The other NEV did not have the 
batteries shielded from the occupant area. The golf car was gasoline-
powered. VRTC also conducted impact tests on windshield glazing, which 
is discussed in some detail below under ``Safety Engineering Issues.''
    In April 1998, NHTSA asked the City of Palm Desert for an update on 
the implementation of its plan. In the 21 months since the agency's 
public meeting in July 1996, the number of golf carts registered for 
use under the plan rose from 193 to approximately 250. Two crashes have 
occurred since then, although neither caused an injury. The

[[Page 33205]]

first crash occurred when the driver of a conventional car turned the 
corner and hit a golf car that was being illegally driven in the 
pedestrian crosswalk. In the second crash, a golf car operator had left 
the City of Palm Desert plan area and was struck just over the border 
of the next town, Indian Wells, when the golf car turned into the 
driveway of a country club. As noted in the NPRM, the only crash that 
occurred between 1993 and 1996 involved the overturning of a golf car 
being operated by joy-riding teenagers.

IV. Final Rule and Resolution of Key Issues

A. Summary

    The final rule establishes a new class of 4-wheeled vehicles, 
called LSVs, and excludes them from passenger car class. LSVs are 4-
wheeled vehicles, other than trucks, whose maximum speed exceeds 20 but 
is not greater than 25 miles per hour. By removing them from the 
passenger car class, the rule relieves manufacturers of LSVs of the 
need they would otherwise have of complying with the full range of 
FMVSSs for those classes and substitutes Standard No. 500 as the only 
applicable FMVSS. With the exception of the warning label, which was 
not adopted, LSVs are required to have all the safety features and 
equipment proposed in the NPRM, including seat belts, plus two 
additional items added in response to comments: a VIN, and a reflex 
reflector on the rear. However, as an alternative to an AS-1 
windshield, an AS-5 plastic windshield may be used.

B. Authority and Safety Need for this Final Rule

    NHTSA was presented with a variety of arguments regarding its 
authority to regulate low-speed vehicles. WLF raised questions whether 
the vehicles covered by the agency's proposal are motor vehicles. That 
organization also argued that issuing the final rule would not promote 
safety because there is no safety problem to be addressed. Conversely, 
Advocates and CFA argued that excluding small vehicles from the FMVSSs 
will create a safety problem. AIA and Advocates stated that the agency 
had not adequately gathered and considered relevant data prior to 
issuing the proposal, citing agency statements about the dearth of data 
on LSV crashes and about the foreign experiences with small vehicles.
1. Low-Speed Vehicles are Motor Vehicles
    Title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 grants NHTSA regulatory authority over 
``motor vehicles.'' A ``motor vehicle'' is defined as a vehicle 
``manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and 
highways'' (Sec. 30102(a)(6)). As noted above, NHTSA's principal 
interpretation of the definition of ``motor vehicle'' dates from 1969, 
and addressed the status of mini-bikes. NHTSA said that if a type of 
vehicle is physically capable of being operated on the public roads and 
if a substantial portion of the users of those vehicles uses them on 
the road, those vehicles are motor vehicles, without regard to the 
intent of the manufacturer. It bears repeating that the agency said 
that perhaps the most important criterion to be used in resolving 
borderline cases

    * * * is whether state and local laws permit the vehicle in 
question to be used and registered for use on public highways. The 
nature of the manufacturer's promotional and marketing activities is 
also evidence of the use for which the vehicle is manufactured.

    a. Speed-modified golf cars are motor vehicles. Not only are speed-
modified golf cars whose top speed is between 20 and 25 miles per hour 
fast enough to be capable of being used on roads with low-posted speed 
limits, but also their operation on public roads is commonplace. 
18 (See the testimony regarding their on-road use in Arizona 
at the agency's first public meeting.) Further, much of the on-road use 
is not incidental to the playing of golf. Instead, many trips are made 
for purposes unrelated to golf, such as shopping or visiting friends. 
The agency notes that Club Car, one of the larger manufacturers of golf 
cars, stated that the market for and use of personal golf cars are 
largely limited to the states and local jurisdictions that permit the 
on-road use of golf cars. NHTSA believes that it is reasonable to 
conclude that the market for speed-modified golf cars is similarly 
limited, and that virtually all users of those vehicles use them on the 
road.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Indeed, it is possible that the very modifications that are 
made to enhance on-road performance could render speed-modified golf 
cars unsuitable for golf course use if their low speed torque is 
increased too much. Excessive torque could damage the turf on golf 
courses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the agency does not regard the question of whether speed-
modified golf cars are motor vehicles to be a borderline one, the 
agency notes that even if it were, those vehicles meet several of the 
key criteria considered by the agency in borderline cases. As noted 
above, 12 states authorize their local governments to permit general 
purpose use of golf cars on designated roads and another four permit 
more limited on-road use. A majority of those states require either 
that the golf cars be registered or that the user have a driver's 
license, or both. The modifiers of these vehicles do not label these 
vehicles as being not manufactured for on-road use. Quite the contrary, 
they equip them with the equipment required by states and local 
jurisdictions for on-road use. Further, their top speed capability is 
far above the maximum average permissible speed specified in the 
voluntary industry for golf cars intended exclusively for use on golf 
courses. Finally, they advertise the top speed capability of their 
vehicles. Since driving these golf cars at or near their top speeds on 
golf courses is presumably impermissible and since their on-road use is 
commonplace, such advertising is tantamount to advertising them for on-
road use.
    b. Neighborhood Electric Vehicles are Motor Vehicles. The agency 
begins its analysis of whether NEVs are motor vehicles by noting that 
neither of the two current NEV manufacturers contest that NEVs may 
properly be regarded as motor vehicles under the Vehicle Safety Act. 
The agency's analysis is essentially the same as that for speed-
modified golf cars, except that since only a few NEVs have been sold in 
this country, the agency must base its analysis for NEVs on their 
anticipated marketing and use. Not only are NEVs fast enough to be 
capable of being used on roads with low-posted speed limits, but also 
they are expected to be used extensively for that purpose. It is 
further anticipated that much of the on-road use will not be incidental 
to the playing of golf. NHTSA believes that it is reasonable to 
conclude that the market for NEVs will be limited to the states and 
local jurisdictions that permit the on-road use of golf cars or NEVs, 
and that virtually all users of those vehicles will use them on the 
road.
    As in the case of speed-modified golf cars, the agency does not 
regard the question of whether NEVs are motor vehicles to be a 
borderline one. Nevertheless, the agency notes that even if it were, 
those vehicles meet several of the key criteria considered by the 
agency in borderline cases. 12 states authorize their local governments 
to permit general purpose use of golf cars and/or NEVs on designated 
roads and another four permit more limited on-road use. A majority of 
those states require either that the golf cars or NEVs be registered or 
that the user have a driver's license, or both. As originally 
manufactured, these vehicles are equipped with the safety devices and 
features required by states and local jurisdictions for on-road use. 
Further, their top speed capability is far above the maximum average 
permissible speed

[[Page 33206]]

specified in the voluntary industry for golf cars intended exclusively 
for use on golf courses. While both NEV manufacturers provide a device 
that can be used to reduce vehicle speeds to levels appropriate for 
golf course use, that device is available from one of the manufacturers 
only as an item of optional equipment. Finally, the two NEV 
manufacturers advertise their vehicles for on-road use.
2. The Agency Has Authority to Regulate Anticipated as well as Current 
Safety Problems
    In response to WLF's argument, NHTSA observes that its authority is 
preventive in nature. Congress has charged it with issuing standards to 
protect the public against ``unreasonable risk'' of crashes and of 
deaths and injuries resulting from crashes. 49 U.S.C. 30102(8) and 
30111(a). This means that the existence of a risk is sufficient to 
justify the issuance of standards. If the occurrence of deaths and 
injuries is reasonably anticipated, NHTSA need not wait until they 
actually begin to occur in large numbers before taking action to 
prevent them.
3. Issuance of this Rule Appropriately Addresses an Anticipated Safety 
Problem
    a. Crash Data Show a Limited Safety Problem Involving the On-Road 
Use of Fleet and Personal Golf Cars. Crash data have become available 
since the NPRM showing that although deaths and serious injuries 
resulting from the on-road use of golf cars are not numerous, they are 
occurring. NHTSA's Fatal Analysis Reporting System (FARS) is a census 
of all fatalities and fatal crashes occurring on U.S. roads open to the 
public and resulting in the death of an occupant or nonmotorist within 
30 days of the crash. FARS has records of nine deaths of golf car 
occupants on the public roads from 1993 to February 1998. 19 
Three of the deaths occurred in Arizona, three in North Carolina, one 
each in California, Florida and Iowa. Eight of the nine deaths resulted 
when the golf car collided with a car or truck. The ninth occurred when 
the golf car ran off the road and its occupants were ejected. Data from 
CPSC include an additional seven deaths in on-road crashes not included 
in FARS, implying a total of 16 fatalities over a 5-year period. The 
city that has recorded the most deaths appears to be Sun City, Arizona. 
According to an Associated Press story dated March 12, 1998, there had 
been four deaths in golf car crashes in Sun City since 1995. 
20
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\  Although designed to be a census of all traffic 
fatalities, FARS does not contain all of the on-road golf car 
fatalities reported by CPSC to NHTSA. The submissions from CPSC 
include information on an additional seven deaths.
    \20\  This number was confirmed in a June 3, 1988 telephone 
conversation with Detective Jeffrey Childs of the Maricopa County 
Sheriff's Department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, NHTSA obtained data from CPSC regarding injuries and 
deaths involving the operation of golf cars. This information covers 
all types of golf cars, and all uses (on and around golf courses, as 
well as on public streets and roads). CPSC provided the agency with 
four different sources of information about golf cars. Three of these 
were relevant:
    1. A printout of reported incidents involving golf cars. The 
reports are obtained from CPSC's Medical Examiners and Coroners Alert 
Program, Underwriters Laboratory, American Trial Lawyers Association, 
Consumers Union, consumer complaints, and newspaper clippings, and are 
not statistically reliable for national estimates. The reported 
incident data set included 19 on-road incidents between 1993 and 
February 1998, 14 of which were fatalities. All 9 of the FARS cases 
were included in these 14 cases. These fatalities mostly occurred when 
the golf car collided with a passenger car or light truck on roadways.
    2. A printout of death certificates in which a golf car was 
mentioned. CPSC has contracts with all 50 State Health Departments to 
provide information about death certificates that mention the use of 
certain products, including golf cars; however, not all states reported 
during the entire period. The Death Certificate file reported 3 on-road 
fatalities involving golf cars during the period 1993 to February 1998. 
One of these cases was included in the 14 cases mentioned above and 2 
were not. Thus, there are a total of at least 16 on-road fatalities to 
occupants of golf cars during the period 1993 to February 1998.
    3. A summary of incidents and national estimates for injuries 
involving golf cars from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance 
System (NEISS) for the years 1993 to 1997. These data are a compilation 
of information derived from reports of product-associated injuries 
treated in hospital emergency departments that participate in the 
National Electronic Injury Surveillance System. The NEISS estimates are 
calculated using data from a probability sample of hospitals with 
emergency departments located within the United States and its 
territories.
    The following table presents incidents for ``golf carts'' reported 
by CPSC's NEISS during the years 1993-1997:

                                            NEISS Reported Incidents                                            
                                                   [1993-1997]                                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        5 year  
          Type of injury                1993         1994         1995         1996         1997        total   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pedestrian injury.................           36           19           18           16           30          119
Off-road injury...................           96          138          145          146          168          693
On-road injury....................            3            4            5            5            6           23
On-road fatality..................            1            0            0            0            0            1
Rollover injury...................            4            4            8            4            7           27
Ejection injury...................           26           17           14           11           12           94
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total \21\....................          100          142          149          161          174         726 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The figures in the columns are not additive because some injuries fit into more than one category.         

    Based on the data in the above table, the agency has estimated the 
total national injuries associated with ``golf carts'' of all types and 
uses (i.e., on-road as well as on golf courses) to be 6,372, 6,808, 
7,603, and 7,218 for the years 1993 through 1996.
    The agency estimates that there were an average of 222 on-road golf 
car injuries per year over the 5-year period. This injury estimate is 
calculated as follows: 7,000 injuries (national annual injury average 
for 1993-1998)  x  23 (on-road or vehicle-involved injuries) / 726 
(NEISS reported incidents 1993-1997) = 222 annual average of national 
injuries.

[[Page 33207]]

    There is only 1 fatality involving a golf car in the 5 years of 
NEISS data. However, based on the reported incident and death 
certificate data provided to NHTSA, there were 16 on-road golf car 
fatalities over a 5-year period, an average of 3 fatalities per year.
    NHTSA anticipates that the number of on-road serious injuries and 
deaths involving occupants of fleet and personal golf cars will grow 
with the growth in number and speed of the same or similar vehicles on 
the road. The number of golf cars operated on public roads is currently 
limited. As more state legislatures authorize their local jurisdictions 
to designate public roads for use of low-speed vehicles and other 
vehicles, and especially as more local jurisdictions use that 
authority, the sale and use of low-speed vehicles will increase. 
Further, to the extent that NEV manufacturers are successful, it seems 
likely that golf car manufacturers will respond to that competition by 
intensifying their efforts to sell personal golf cars whose top speed 
is between 15 and 20 miles per hour.
    b. The States Have Adopted Laws Requiring Safety Equipment on Fleet 
and Personal Golf Cars Used on Public Roads. The majority of the 12 
states that have enacted legislation permitting all-purpose on-road use 
of golf cars and/or NEVs believe that there is a need for safety 
requirements and have taken steps to satisfy that need. Nine of those 
12 states have mandated that those vehicles have specified safety 
equipment if they are used on-road and a tenth state authorized its 
local governments to adopt safety requirements. (See the table below.) 
Further, in their comments on the NPRM, state officials in California, 
Arizona, and Iowa indicated that they believe that the issuance of 
Federal safety requirements is warranted.

   States Permitting All-Purpose Golf Car Trips on Public Roads Within  
                    Jurisdiction of Local Governments                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Roads on which                         
           State                  operation is         Required safety  
                                   permitted              equipment     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California.................  On private and public  Local government may
                              roadways designated    require safety     
                              by local government.   devices. Headlamps,
                                                     taillamps,         
                                                     reflectors, stop   
                                                     lamps, and brakes  
                                                     for nighttime      
                                                     operation.         
Nevada.....................  On public roadways     Headlamps,          
                              designated by local    taillamps,         
                              government.            reflectors, stop   
                                                     lamps, mirror,     
                                                     brakes and an      
                                                     emblem placard for 
                                                     slow moving        
                                                     vehicles.          
Arizona....................  On roadways with       Headlamps,          
                              posted speed limit     taillamps,         
                              of 35 mph or less.     reflectors, stop   
                                                     lamps, mirror,     
                                                     brakes, and a      
                                                     notice of          
                                                     operations and     
                                                     restrictions in    
                                                     full view of       
                                                     driver.            
New Mexico.................  On private and public  An emblem placard or
                              roadways designated    flashing yellow    
                              by local government.   light for slow     
                              Carts may not be       moving vehicles is 
                              operated on state      required.          
                              highways.                                 
Colorado...................  On private and public  Headlamps,          
                              roadways designated    taillamps,         
                              by local government.   reflectors, stop   
                                                     lamps, mirror, and 
                                                     brakes.            
Wyoming....................  On public streets and  Local government may
                              roadways designated    require safety     
                              by local government.   devices.           
Illinois \22\..............  On roadways            Steering apparatus, 
                              designated by local    rearview mirror,   
                              governments.           front and rear red 
                                                     reflectorized      
                                                     warning devices,   
                                                     slow moving vehicle
                                                     emblem, headlight, 
                                                     brake lights and   
                                                     turn signals       
Minnesota..................  On roads designated    Slow moving vehicle 
                              by local government.   emblem and a rear  
                                                     view mirror.       
Iowa.......................  On private and public  Slow moving vehicle 
                              roadways designated    emblem, bicycle    
                              by local government.   safety flag,       
                              Carts may not be       adequate brakes.   
                              operated on primary    Local government   
                              roads.                 may require other  
                                                     safety equipment.  
Florida....................  On private and public  Efficient brakes,   
                              roadways designated    reliable steering  
                              by local government    apparatus, safe    
                              and in self-           tires, rearview    
                              contained retirement   mirror, and red    
                              communities.           reflectorized      
                                                     warning device in  
                                                     front and rear.    
                                                     Headlamps,         
                                                     taillamps, and stop
                                                     lamps for nighttime
                                                     operation.         
Georgia....................  On private and public  None.               
                              roadways designated                       
                              by local government.                      
Texas......................  On private and public  None.               
                              roadways designated                       
                              by local government.                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Passed by legislature May 6, 1998; sent to Governor June 4, 1998.  

    c. There is a similar, but greater anticipated safety problem 
involving low-speed vehicles. Largely because of their greater speed, 
the potential for growth in the numbers of LSVs, and in the number of 
deaths and serious injuries associated with LSVs, is even greater. 
NHTSA anticipates that sales of LSVs will steadily grow and that, as a 
result, there will be increased exposure leading to increased numbers 
of serious injuries and deaths. While the number of LSVs is limited 
now, it will grow, particularly with the introduction and sale of NEVs. 
To the extent that the NEV market expands, existing NEV manufacturers 
will be induced to make further improvements to increase consumer 
appeal and new manufacturers may be induced to enter the market. The 
product improvements resulting from this competition will likely boost 
sales further. Further, to the extent that NEV manufacturers are 
successful, new manufacturers of speed-modified golf cars may be 
induced to enter the market. Since LSVs will likely be faster than most 
of the sub-25 mph vehicles on the road during 1993-1997, the crash 
forces of single and multiple vehicle crashes involving LSVs will tend 
to be greater than the crash forces in those 1993-1997 crashes. As a 
result, the LSV crashes will be more likely to result in serious or 
fatal injuries to their occupants. Further, the higher speed of an LSV, 
while enabling a driver to pass through risky driving situations more 
quickly, may also induce a driver to take risks in more situations.
    d. This rule requires safety equipment on low-speed vehicles 
consistent with their characteristics and operating environment. 
Advocates and CFA were concerned about the risk to safety posed by a 
growing class of small vehicles and argued that NHTSA's actions are 
contrary to its statutory mandate

[[Page 33208]]

because they will exacerbate the risk. Their concern related to the 
potential for crashes involving small vehicles such as LSVs and larger 
ones that may be sharing the same roadway, and the threat that this 
poses to occupants of LSVs.
    NHTSA has carefully reviewed their argument about the effects of 
this rulemaking. LSV safety, and thus the need for FMVSSs for LSVs, 
will be determined by the combination of three factors: vehicle design 
and performance; operator training and ability; and the operating 
environment. The agency believes that Standard No. 500, in combination 
with a limited operating environment and appropriate operator training 
and ability, will appropriately address the safety needs of LSV users.
    With respect to the LSV itself, the safety goal is that the vehicle 
have crash avoidance and crash protection characteristics appropriate 
for its speed and size, and its operating environment. Seat belts will 
afford protection against ejection. In the mixed motoring environment 
that will result when LSVs are introduced, crash avoidance will become 
all the more important. The small LSV must be easily detectable by 
drivers of larger vehicles. The requirements for lamps and reflectors 
should enhance the conspicuity of LSVs. Further, the LSV must have 
sufficient capability to move out of the way of faster traffic. LSVs 
designed to travel at speeds approaching 25 miles per hour will give 
them greater ability than fleet and personal golf cars to maneuver in 
and out of on-road situations that threaten them, e.g., when passing 
through an intersection after stopping at a stop sign or when turning 
left across lanes for oncoming traffic.
    With respect to the operator, the safety goal is that the driver be 
familiar with the operating characteristics of the LSV so that he or 
she may drive appropriately to minimize the possibility of rollover, or 
hitting a pedestrian or other vehicle. States can contribute to driver 
safety by requiring LSV operators to be licensed.
    The driving environment should be appropriate to the vehicle and 
its characteristics. Limitation of LSV use to low-speed city and 
suburban streets is necessary, but not eliminate the safety risks. In 
this regard, the agency notes that there have been four fatalities in 
golf car crashes in Sun City, Arizona. Conversely, none have occurred 
in the City of Palm Desert.
    There are a number of possible reasons for the reported different 
safety records of these two cities. A very large difference in the 
number of golf cars used on-road may be one reason. Approximately 6,000 
golf cars are driven on the roads of Sun City, while the number of golf 
cars registered for on-road use in City of Palm Desert is only 
approximately 250. Also, neither Arizona nor Sun City requires all of 
the safety equipment (e.g., seat belts) that the City of Palm Desert 
requires.
    Still another reason may lie in the different operating 
environments in the two communities. The City of Palm Desert has a more 
controlled environment than Sun City for golf car use. The City of Palm 
Desert permits on-road use of golf cars in the same lanes as passenger 
cars and other larger motor vehicles in speed zones posted for speeds 
up to 25 miles per hour. In speed zones posted for speeds over 25 miles 
per hour, golf cars may be operated on-road only if there is a lane 
designated for their use and if the golf car is, in fact, operated 
within that lane. By contrast, NHTSA understands that Sun City, under 
state law, allows golf cars to operate in the same lanes as larger 
traffic on any road with a maximum speed of 35 miles per hour.
    NHTSA recognizes that not all operating environments may be as 
controlled as that of the City of Palm Desert. The agency encourages 
other states and municipalities to study the features of the City of 
Palm Desert's plan, and to adopt those features to the extent 
practicable.
4. The Agency Has Appropriately Considered the Experience of Foreign 
Small Vehicles
    In the NPRM, the agency noted that small, but generally higher 
speed passenger vehicles were being marketed in Japan (``kei'' cars) 
and France (Voiture Sans Permis (VSP) and Tricycles et Quadricycles a 
Moteur (TQM)). Within the limits of its knowledge at the time of the 
NPRM, the agency described the physical attributes of these vehicles 
and some of the operating limitations.
    Advocates responded to this discussion in the NPRM by arguing that 
the agency had not adequately considered these foreign experiences with 
small vehicles. Since the NPRM, the agency has obtained additional 
information regarding both kei cars and the French voiturettes. The 
limits on length, width and engine displacement of kei cars have been 
steadily eased over the last 20 years. Limit on engine displacement has 
increased from less than 360 cc prior to 1976, to less than 550 cc in 
1976, to less than 660 cc in 1990. Length limits have increased 
slightly, from approximately 3.2 m in 1976, to 3.3 m in 1990 to 3.4 m 
in October 1998. Width limits have slightly increased from less than 
1.4 in 1976 to less than 1.48 in October 1998.
    NHTSA is also aware that the safety requirements for kei cars have 
been steadily increased in the 1990's. Beginning in 1994, frontal crash 
protection requirements had to be met by kei cars at 40 km/hr and by 
passenger cars at 50 km/hr. Those requirements are a HIC not greater 
than 1000, thorax acceleration not greater than 60g and femur load not 
greater than 10kn. The test speed for the frontal crash protection 
requirements will become the same (50 km/hr) for kei cars and passenger 
cars in October of this year, when the most recent increases in kei car 
length and width become effective.
    As for the two classes of voiturettes in Europe, the agency has 
learned that the European Union (EU) issued a directive last year 
harmonizing laws in EU for mopeds, auto-cycles, motorcycles and 
motorized tricycles and quadricycles (``voiturettes'') with respect to 
tires, lighting, signaling, mirrors, fuel tanks, seat belts, and belt 
anchorages, washers, wipers, and demisters. Under the directive, a 
voiturette approved in one European country is automatically marketable 
in all 14 other member states.
    The critical point, however, concerning the Japanese kei cars and 
the faster class of voiturettes is that they are not similar to LSVs 
and their experiences are not directly relevant. Their operating 
characteristics and environment are so different from those of LSVs 
that the experiences of those foreign cars are not predictive of the 
experiences of LSVs. The kei cars and TQM voiturettes can travel at 
approximately twice the speed of LSVs and have a much longer operating 
range. Further, their operating environment is not nearly so restricted 
by law as that of LSVs.

C. Safety Engineering Issues

    There were a number of issues involving scope of the standard and 
the equipment that would be required.
1. Speed Range of Motor Vehicles Subject to This Standard.
    a. Minimum Threshold of 20 Miles Per Hour. The NPRM proposed to 
regulate golf cars with a top speed range of 15 to 25 miles per hour, 
and other 4-wheeled motor vehicles, other than vehicles with work-
performing equipment, with a top speed of up to 25 miles per 
hour.23 The final rule applies to a smaller group of 
vehicles, i.e., 4-wheeled motor vehicles, other than

[[Page 33209]]

trucks, with a top speed of 20 to 25 miles per hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Motorcycles are already subject to a variety of FMVSSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In issuing the NPRM, NHTSA did not intend to regulate conventional 
golf cars. To carry out that intent, the agency proposed to include 
only those vehicles whose maximum speed exceeded 15 miles per hour. 
That speed was selected on the basis of information indicating that 
fleet and personal golf cars had a maximum speed of 15 miles per hour. 
As noted above, standard Z130.1, the industry standard for golf cars to 
be ``used solely on golf courses'' (paragraph 1.1), contains a 
specification for ``Maximum vehicle speed'' (paragraph 9.6.1). That 
specification states that when a golf car is operated on a straight 
track at maximum speed, once in either direction, the ``(t)he average 
speed [of the two runs] shall not exceed 15 mi/h (24 km/h)'' (paragraph 
9.6.1.3). Accordingly, the agency tentatively concluded that if a golf 
car had a top speed greater than 15 miles per hour, that capability 
evidenced an intent that the golf car be operated on the road as well 
as on golf courses. Further, NGCMA stated at the July 25, 1996 public 
meeting that ``100 percent'' of the golf car manufacturers adhered to 
the standard. This statement led the agency to believe that virtually 
all fleet and personal golf cars met the industry standard.
    The submissions by the golf car industry after the NPRM contained 
significant new information. While the pre-NPRM information represented 
the annual fleet of new golf cars as an essentially homogeneous, 
undifferentiated collection of vehicles, the post-NPRM information drew 
distinctions between a variety of subgroups within the new golf car 
fleet. One distinction was made between fleet golf cars and personal 
golf cars. Another and more important distinction was made between the 
vast majority of golf cars that have a top speed of about 12 miles per 
hour versus the much more limited, but not insignificant number of golf 
cars that have a top speed of 15-20 miles per hour.24
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ In submissions made after the NPRM, NGCMA stated that sales 
of new golf cars are divided into two categories; ``fleet golf 
cars'' and ``personal golf cars.'' Fleet golf cars are sold directly 
to golf courses. They comprise approximately 89 percent of sales. In 
an April 16, 1998 letter, NGCMA estimated that fleet golf cars have 
a maximum speed of approximately 12 miles per hour or less. Personal 
golf cars are sold to individuals, and comprise approximately 11 
percent of sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its February 1997 comment on the NPRM, Club Car, the second 
largest member of NGCMA, confirmed that it produces personal golf cars 
whose top speed is between 15 and 20 miles per hour. It did not 
specify, however, the percentage of its personal golf cars with that 
top speed. Further, Club Car gave no indication in that comment that it 
produced any fleet golf cars with such a top speed. However, in 
response to this agency's May 1998 inquiry about the percentage of 
fleet and personal golf cars with a top speed above 15 miles per hour 
produced by each of the major NGCMA members, NGCMA stated in a 
telephone conversation on June 3 that 1 percent of Club Car's fleet 
golf cars, and 75 percent of its personal golf cars, have a top speed 
between 15 and 20 miles per hour. None of the other large members 
produce any golf cars with such a top speed. Prior to that 
conversation, NGCMA had not explicitly stated that any of its members 
currently produce golf cars exceeding 15 miles per hour. However, NGCMA 
did suggest in its post-NPRM submissions that personal golf cars be 
defined as having a top speed between 15 and 20 miles per hour and 
explicitly stated that none of its members are now manufacturing 
personal golf cars capable of exceeding 20 miles per hour.
    In light of this new information and on further consideration, the 
agency has decided to limit the application of Standard No. 500 to 
vehicles whose top speed is between 20 and 25 miles per hour. This 
decision carries out the agency's original intent of excluding 
virtually all conventional golf cars from the standard.
    The agency believes that 20 miles per hour is a better dividing 
line between vehicles designed for use on the golf course and vehicles 
designed for on-road use. The conventional golf cars whose top speed is 
between 15 and 20 miles per hour have a body and understructure ver 
similar to that of conventional golf cars whose top speed is less than 
15 miles per hour. Further, while the speed differential between those 
two groups of golf cars creates a significant difference in their 
potential crash energy, the energy in the 15 to 20 mile-per-hour range 
is still modest compared to that of LSVs. As noted above, golf cars 
with a top speed of less than 15 miles per hour reportedly have a top 
speed of about 12 miles per hour. Those golf cars with a top speed 
between 15 and 20 miles per hour are believed by the agency to have a 
top speed of approximately 17 to 18 miles per hour.
    The practical safety effects of raising the speed threshold does 
not appear to be extensive. Data obtained since the NPRM regarding the 
limited number of fatalities associated with on-road use of fleet and 
personal golf cars indicate that the state and local governments are 
adequately providing for the safety of on-road users of those golf 
cars. The agency recognizes that the limited number may partially 
reflect the currently limited extent of general on-road use of golf 
cars. However, NHTSA believes that it also reflects the efforts being 
made by state and local governments to regulate the safety of the on-
road use of golf cars. Even as the number of golf cars used on-road 
increases, there will be less reason for safety concern about vehicles 
whose maximum speed is 15 to 20 miles per hour than about vehicles 
whose maximum speed is 20 to 25 miles per hour. This is because, as 
also noted above, the potential crash energy of a vehicle traveling 20 
to 25 miles per hour is significantly greater than one traveling at 
less than 20 miles per hour.
    By excluding fleet and personal golf cars from the standard's 
applicability, NHTSA emphasizes that it has not decided or implied that 
these vehicles should not be subject to any safety regulation by state 
or local authorities. Moreover, since the agency is not treating those 
vehicles as motor vehicles, its standard setting activities cannot pre-
empt any such state or local regulation. State and local jurisdictions 
may continue to adopt such safety equipment requirements as they deem 
appropriate for vehicles, including golf cars, with a maximum speed of 
20 miles per hour or less.
    b. Upper Limit of 25 Miles Per Hour. NHTSA notes Advocates' 
apprehension that there might be a future increase in the upper speed 
threshold for low-speed vehicles. This issue was discussed in the City 
of Palm Desert meeting (see text of Transcript, beginning at p. 17). 
There was no sentiment for increasing the permissible speed for on-road 
golf cars beyond 25 miles per hour. Further, while the agency cannot 
predict the future, it does not contemplate the possibility that future 
circumstances might justify increasing the upper threshold for LSVs. 
Even if it did occur, the changed circumstances would cause the agency 
to examine significantly narrowing the differences between the safety 
requirements for LSVs and passenger cars.25 In this regard, 
as NHTSA has already noted above, the steady increase in Japanese kei 
car size and engine displacement has resulted, effective in October of 
this year, in the elimination of any difference between the frontal 
crash protection safety requirements for kei cars and those for 
passenger cars. Finally, the agency notes

[[Page 33210]]

that it would not be appropriate for it to issue this final rule just 
because of the possibility that there may be future requests for the 
agency to take additional actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ NHTSA notes that in the 30 years since the creation of the 
motor-driven cycle subclass, there has not been any increase in the 
level of horsepower that divides those vehicles from other 
motorcycles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA is aware that a state legislature could define NEVs as 
vehicles capable of speeds in excess of 25 miles per hour. The agency 
emphasizes that the enactment of such definition would have no impact 
upon the Federal definition of LSV, or on the applicability of Standard 
No. 500. Any NEV or other small passenger vehicle whose maximum speed 
is higher than 25 miles per hour would not qualify as an LSV. 
Accordingly, it would have to comply with the full range of Federal 
motor vehicle safety standards applicable to its type. As noted above, 
such a vehicle would most likely be classified as a passenger car, and 
be subject to the full range of FMVSSs for passenger cars.
2. Seat belts
    The proposed requirement for seat belts is supported by the two 
known manufacturers of NEVs, both of which advertise their vehicles as 
being equipped with seat belts, and is not opposed by dealers who 
produce speed-modified golf cars with a top speed greater than 20 miles 
per hour.
    Based primarily on the fact that the proposal would have applied to 
those golf cars capable, as originally manufactured, of exceeding 15 
miles per hour, golf car manufacturers and dealers initially 
strenuously opposed requiring seat belts. According to NGCMA:

such a requirement in a golf car as presently manufactured is not 
necessarily going to provide increased safety to occupants but may 
enhance the risk of injury or even death if the occupant is 
restrained in the vehicle by a seat belt assembly upon rollover. 
Engineering consensus is seat belts on golf cars are inappropriate 
as is the case with motorcycles, ATVs, snowmobiles and personal 
watercrafts. An optional passenger roof may be affixed to a golf car 
for weather protection, but the roofs so installed do not comply 
with standard ROPS [rollover protection system] criteria.
    Golf cars are equipped with a standard hip or hand hold 
restraint located towards the outside of the seat. However, the hand 
hold does not prevent the occupant from jumping or leaping out of 
the golf car to avoid further injury if the golf car is about to 
roll over. For this reason, NGCMA submits that in lieu of a seat 
belt requirement for golf cars, a hand hold or hip restraint should 
be required as set forth in ANSI/NGCMA Z130.1

    In its February 21, 1997 comments on the NPRM, NGCMA sought a delay 
in the implementation of the proposed standard to give the industry 
time to study ``occupant dynamics and a review of seat belt design and 
seat belt mounting and attachment methods.'' It estimated that a 
minimum of 24 to 36 months would be needed for that purpose.
    In its December 22, 1997 submission to the docket, NGCMA clarified 
its previous statements and indicated that the industry does not 
manufacture golf cars that exceed 20 miles per hour, and asked that 
golf cars incapable of exceeding that speed not be required to be 
equipped with seat belts. Subsequently, over 30 dealers and 
distributors informed NHTSA that if the agency limited the seat belt 
requirement as requested by NGCMA in its December 1997 letter, they 
would not oppose the issuance of an LSV final rule. (March 20, 1998 
letter from Eileen Bradner, Counsel to Club Car, Inc.) Given that this 
final rule does not apply to the golf cars that concerned the industry 
and its dealers, i.e., golf cars incapable of exceeding 20 miles per 
hour, the golf car industry's concerns about seat belts and golf cars 
have been resolved.
    Nevertheless, it is necessary to address the safety value of 
requiring seat belts in speed-modified and custom golf cars whose speed 
capability exceeds 20 miles per hour, thus qualifying them as LSVs. WLF 
argued that the use of seat belts by golf car users would lead to 
decreased, instead of increased, safety.
    Seat belts reduce occupant ejection from all types of vehicles. 
They are highly effective in preventing occupants of open vehicles from 
falling out during abrupt maneuvers and in preventing or reducing 
ejection from both closed and open body vehicles in crashes. This is 
important for safety since ejection onto hard road surfaces in traffic 
substantially increases the likelihood of death or serious injury.
    Support for seat belts in golf cars has been expressed in Sun City, 
Arizona, the scene of four golf car crash fatalities between 1995 and 
early 1998, and in nearby Sun City West. In 1996, the Sun City West 
Property Owners-Resident Association and Sun City Homeowners 
Association reportedly responded to a perceived increase in the number 
of golf car crashes by asking local golf car dealers and distributors 
to install seat belts in all golf cars used on public roads. (The 
Arizona Republic/The Phoenix Gazette, July 15, 1996).26 More 
recently, in a March 12, 1998 Associated Press story, Detective Jeffrey 
Childs of the Maricopa County (Arizona) Sheriff's Department was 
reported as saying that use of seat belts in golf cars would prevent 
injuries and deaths. Maricopa County includes Sun City, which, as noted 
above, was the site of four golf car crash fatalities between 1995 and 
the date of that story. Detective Childs reportedly stated his belief 
that the last person killed in a Sun City golf car crash, a woman 
thrown from her golf car when it was struck by a passenger car, would 
have survived had she been wearing a seat belt. He also noted more 
generally, ``(w)e've had incidents where they'll take a corner too fast 
and get pitched out * * *. At that age, that'll kill them.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ In a May 27, 1998 telephone conversation with an agency 
official, Mr. Paul Schwartz, Chairman of the Transportation 
Committee, Sun City Homeowners Association, Inc., said his 
association continued to support seat belts. In a May 28, 1998 
telephone conversation, Mr. Noel Willis, President of the Sun City 
West Property Owners-Residents Association, said his association has 
no position on seat belts in golf cars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, seat belt installation continues to have support in the 
City of Palm Desert. The agency notes that although California 
eliminated its requirement that local golf car transportation plans 
include a requirement for seats belts, the City of Palm Desert has 
retained its seat belt requirement.
    The agency concludes that the primary value of seat belt use in 
LSVs will be in reducing the frequency and severity of injuries in non-
rollover crashes of LSVs by preventing occupant ejection. NHTSA 
estimates that 12-13 percent of the fatalities and injuries in on-road 
crashes of golf cars involved ejection of the golf car occupants. The 
importance of preventing ejection may also be seen from examining FARS 
data. Although those data relate to vehicles with higher speed 
capability and, in most instances, with enclosed occupant compartments, 
they are nevertheless instructive. Those data show that the likelihood 
of a vehicle occupant's being killed if ejected is 4 times greater than 
the likelihood of being killed if the occupant remains within the 
vehicle. Seat belts are 99 percent effective at preventing full 
ejection and 86 percent effective at preventing partial ejection. Even 
if these compelling data are discounted to reflect differences in the 
vehicle populations being compared, they still lead the agency to 
determine that seat belts will enhance the safety of LSV occupants in 
non-rollover crashes.
    In on-road rollover crashes, the LSV occupants are likely to be 
injured, perhaps seriously, regardless of whether they are belted or 
unbelted. The agency does not believe that the frequency or severity of 
on-road rollover injuries will increase if LSV occupants use seat 
belts.
    The conjectures by some commenters that it would be valuable to be 
able to jump out of an LSV are unsubstantiated speculation that is 
especially

[[Page 33211]]

unpersuasive given the volume of data showing that ejection is 
extremely dangerous and that seat belts are remarkably effective at 
preventing ejection. NHTSA notes that there may be less opportunity 
for, and less potential benefit from, attempting to jump out of an 
overturning LSV traveling down a road than one being driven on a golf 
course. Even if there is sufficient time for some occupants to jump out 
of a golf car during a rollover at speeds under 15 miles per hour on a 
golf course, there is less likely to be an opportunity to do so during 
a rollover at 20 to 25 miles per hour. This seems especially true if an 
LSV rolls over on a road as a result of being struck by a larger, 
faster moving vehicle. Further, jumping out of an LSV traveling down a 
road at speeds up to 25 miles per hour onto the hard surface of that 
road in traffic is more likely to cause serious injury than jumping out 
of an LSV traveling at a speed of 15 miles per hour or less onto the 
surface of a golf course. NHTSA also notes that people using seat belt 
equipped golf cars need not wear the seat belts while driving on a golf 
course.
    Based on these considerations, the agency concludes that it is 
desirable to require seat belts in LSVs. The agency notes that States 
and local jurisdictions are free to require safety belts on golf cars 
whose top speed does not exceed 20 miles per hour.
    NHTSA will monitor the safety record of LSVs manufactured in 
compliance with Standard No. 500. Although the agency does not expect 
that crash data will bear out WLF's concerns, NHTSA, together with 
State and local authorities, will respond appropriately if any changes 
are needed.
3. Windshields
    The golf car industry argued that installation of an AS-1 
windshield would require modification of the windshield mounting 
brackets, would add weight to the upper area of a golf car, thereby 
increasing the likelihood of its rollover, and would be easily 
shattered if struck by a golf ball. Accordingly, the industry 
recommended allowing a ``shatter resistant polymer'' windshield as a 
substitute.
    Although NHTSA's reference standard, the City of Palm Desert 
requirements, did not specify the type of glazing to be used in a 
windshield, NHTSA tentatively decided that safety would be enhanced by 
requiring a passenger car-type windshield, i.e., by requiring AS-1 
glazing. One basis for this tentative decision was that AS-1 glazing is 
not subject to diminution of light transparence through haze and 
scratches. However, given the industry's concern in its comments on the 
NPRM that golf car safety might be compromised were their windshields 
to be cracked by errant golf balls, the agency looked for acceptable 
alternatives.
    The agency conducted a series of tests on various types of glazing 
materials using a projectile to simulate the impact of a golf ball. One 
type was AS-1 glazing. The AS-1 glazing effectively stopped a golf ball 
from penetration at the fastest velocities at which a golf ball is 
likely to travel after being driven off a tee by the average male 
golfer. However, the impact caused glass fragments of the reverse side 
of the glazing to be flung into the passenger compartment, creating a 
possible safety risk for occupants.
    Another series of tests was conducted on an AS-6 motorcycle 
windshield made of ``Lucite.'' When this acrylic plastic windshield was 
impacted at approximately 120-125 miles per hour, it shattered.
    Finally, a series of tests were conducted on polycarbonate plastic 
glazing at speeds up to 225 miles per hour. No penetration, clouding, 
or cracking/shattering occurred.
    After reviewing these tests and the ANSI standard, the agency 
judged that AS-5 glazing is preferable to AS-6 glazing for use as a 
golf car windshield. The specifications for the two types of glazing 
are similar except that, unlike the AS-6 specifications, the AS-5 
specifications include an additional abrasion test that precludes 
acrylic plastic windshields. While AS-4 glazing specifications also 
include the additional abrasion test, they do not include the dart drop 
test requirement in the AS-5 specifications. The agency decided, 
therefore, to change the standard to provide LSV manufacturers with a 
choice between AS-1 and AS-5 windshields. NHTSA is retaining AS-1 
glazing as an option since some LSVs may not be intended for golf 
course use at all. In this regard, the agency notes that the device for 
limiting speed to levels appropriate for golf course use is not 
standard equipment, but a several hundred dollar option, on the 
vehicles of one NEV manufacturer. LSV manufacturers which intend and 
equip their vehicles for golf course use as well as on-road use can 
choose AS-5 glazing for their windshields.
4. VINs, Horn, and Warning Label
    Bombardier (008) and CHP (013) recommended that the new class of 
motor vehicle be required to have a Vehicle Identification Number 
(VIN), as do other classes of motor vehicles subject to the FMVSSs. In 
their opinion, VINs are necessary for state registration and licensing, 
and for effective and efficient safety enforcement regulation and 
recalls. Further, VINs could prove a useful tool in NHTSA's monitoring 
of the record of LSVs.
    The agency agrees with these comments and has added a VIN to the 
list of required safety features. A VIN is necessary to assure timely 
and correct data collection of LSV crashes, and to assure that the data 
is electronically searchable. Additionally, because LSVs, as motor 
vehicles, will be subject to the statutory notification and remedy 
(recall) requirements, equipping LSVs with VINs will also aid in 
identifying the vehicle population involved in a given recall and 
assuring that owners are notified of safety-related defects and 
noncompliances with this standard.
    The commenters suggested that Table 1 of Sec. 565.4, 49 CFR, should 
also be amended to allow for the use of special characters designating 
a vehicle as an LSV. This would avoid any confusion in identifying LSVs 
and other vehicles in crash reports. The agency is interested in this 
suggestion, and will consider it as a possible candidate for future 
rulemaking.
    Both commenters also recommended that LSVs be required to be 
equipped with a horn. The City of Palm Desert and Roseville, California 
require a horn because of the potential safety hazard posed by silent 
electric vehicles to other users of the roadway, such as pedestrians 
and bicyclists. The CHP stated that the horn should be capable of 
emitting a sound audible under normal conditions from a distance of not 
less than 200 feet, but that it should not be unreasonably loud or 
harsh.
    The NPRM did not propose including a horn because there is no 
requirement in the FMVSSs that other motor vehicles be equipped with 
one. A horn is an equipment item that has been standard equipment on 
every motor vehicle since the earliest days of motor vehicles. 
Accordingly, there does not appear to be any need to require one for 
LSVs. Moreover, local jurisdictions, such as the City of Palm Desert, 
may adopt their own requirements for a horn, including requirements 
regulating its performance.
    NHTSA also proposed that LSVs be equipped with a permanently 
affixed label warning the driver against operating the vehicle at 
speeds over 25 miles per hour. As stated in the NPRM, the purpose of 
the label was to ensure that the driver of an LSV 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.

[[Page 33212]]

The agency has decided not to adopt this proposal. The underlying 
problem is addressed by the prohibition in the Vehicle Safety Act 
against commercial entities making inoperative any safety feature 
required by the FMVSSs, including the feature(s) limiting an LSV's top 
speed to not more than 25 miles per hour. Further, if a person decided 
to purchase a speed-modified LSV, notwithstanding the presence of the 
label, having a permanent reminder is unlikely to dissuade the owner 
from operating that vehicle in excess of 25 miles per hour.
5. Other Areas of Safety Performance; Future Considerations
    NHTSA will monitor the safety record of LSVs as the use of those 
vehicles increases. The agency will also consider whether Standard No. 
500 meets the anticipated safety needs of LSV users.
    As the agency noted above, crash avoidance considerations make it 
important that small vehicles be readily detectable by other drivers in 
the traffic stream. Although LSVs are expected to be somewhat larger 
than other small vehicles sharing the roadways with them, e.g., 
motorcycles and bicycles, it is difficult to ensure that drivers of 
larger vehicles are aware of smaller vehicles that may be sharing the 
roadway. Smaller vehicles can more easily get lost in the rearview 
blind spots, or be obscured by an A-pillar when turning in front of 
larger vehicles from the opposite direction. To offset this problem, 
motorcycles are manufactured today so that their headlamps are on (or 
on and modulating) when the ignition is on during daytime operation as 
a means of enhancing the conspicuity of cyclists, who are also advised 
to wear bright colored clothing.
    NHTSA intends to examine the Federal lighting requirements 
presently applicable to motor driven cycles to judge their 
appropriateness and feasibility for LSVs, and to consider whether any 
of the LSV lighting equipment should be required to meet performance 
specifications such as those of the SAE or those currently included in 
Standard No. 108. The agency will also consider the suggestions of some 
commenters. TSEI (018), CHP (028), Brownell (035), Ziolo (040), and SMV 
Technologies (068) were concerned that, if lighting equipment were not 
required to comply with minimum Federal regulations for signals and 
visibility as well as physical endurance requirements, the danger of 
crashes will increase.
    A further issue is whether the drivers of vehicles approaching LSVs 
from behind can detect them in a timely fashion. TSEI also asked for 
identification of LSVs with a conspicuity device that would make it 
clear that these vehicles are operating at lower speeds. Ziolo 
suggested that they be equipped with a high-intensity flashing yellow 
lamp on the rear or on the top. SMV Technologies recommended a 
retroreflective orange triangle to be applied front and rear. NHTSA 
will examine these suggestions. For the present, in consideration of 
these comments, it has added a rear reflex reflector to Standard No. 
500's required lighting equipment.
    NHTSA will also further examine braking performance issues as part 
of its crash-avoidance standards review.
    The agency is also interested in considering further the 
appropriateness of applying other small-vehicle standards to LSVs, 
particularly with reference to occupant protection in crashes and 
safety from propulsion systems after crashes. The first of these 
standards is the golf car industry standard, Z130.1. Although this 
standard is predicated on a vehicle maximum speed of 15 miles per hour, 
the standard contains tests and procedures that warrant examination 
with respect to vehicles with a maximum speed of 20 to 25 miles per 
hour. For example, requirements are specified for static stability in 
both longitudinal and lateral test attitudes (9.6.3) and service and 
parking brake performance (9.6.4). Service brake performance tests are 
conducted on a horizontal flat surface at maximum vehicle speed. 
Specifications are also specified for battery installation (9.7) whose 
impact containment is demonstrated under a dynamic test in which a golf 
car is propelled at maximum speed into a concrete or steel barrier in 
both forward and reverse directions. Golf cars are also subject to 
specifications for wiring systems (paragraph 10.1, for electric-powered 
vehicles; paragraph 11.1, for gasoline-powered vehicles) and heat-
generating components (paragraph 10.2, for electric golf cars; 
paragraph 11.2 for others). Gasoline-powered golf cars are also subject 
to specifications for fuel systems (paragraph 11.3) whose impact 
containment is demonstrated in frontal and reverse barrier tests at 
maximum speed. These latter include containment in a roll-over 
situation.
    NHTSA will also follow the ongoing SAE efforts to develop a 
standard applicable to ``closed community vehicles.'' It is anticipated 
that this standard will address rollover characteristics of small 
vehicles with relatively high centers of gravity, and the concomitant 
risk of leaking of fuel or caustic fluids into the passenger 
compartment in the event of a rollover.
    Finally, the agency intends to examine the appropriateness of 
specifying strength requirements for seat belt anchorages in LSVs.

D. Compliance with other Statutory Requirements Relating to Safety and 
with Federal Statutes Regulating Non-Safety Aspects of Motor Vehicles

1. Other Statutory Requirements Relating to Safety
    This rulemaking places NEVs and golf cars capable of exceeding 20 
miles per hour in a new class of ``motor vehicles,'' and excludes them 
from the FMVSSs that they would otherwise have to meet. Notwithstanding 
their classification as LSVs, instead of passenger cars, these NEVs and 
golf cars remain subject to other safety statutes and regulations 
implementing Chapter 301 that establish obligations for manufacturers 
of ``motor vehicles,'' such as the requirement to file an 
identification statement under Part 566, Manufacturer Identification; 
to certify vehicles pursuant to Part 567, Certification; to provide 
notification and remedy of safety-related defects and noncompliances 
(49 U.S.C. Secs. 30118-30120; Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance 
Reports; and Part 577, Defect and Noncompliance Notification); to 
retain records (Part 576, Record Retention); and to provide consumer 
information (Part 575, Consumer Information Regulations). However, 
since LSVs are excluded from the requirement of Standard No. 110 that 
they be equipped with tires complying with Standard No. 109, NHTSA 
regards Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, as 
inapplicable to manufacturers of LSVs, notwithstanding that LSVs are 
``motor vehicles.''
2. Federal Statutes Regulating Non-Safety Aspects of Motor Vehicles
    NHTSA's vehicle safety program is but one of a number of Federal 
regulatory programs affecting motor vehicles. Others include NHTSA's 
fuel economy, theft, property damage reduction (bumpers), and domestic 
content labeling programs, and the Environmental Protection Agency's 
emissions program. Having been able to use the discretion granted the 
agency by the Vehicle Safety Act to tailor the FMVSS to the particular 
safety problems and compliance capabilities of low-speed vehicles, 
NHTSA has considered whether the Congressional statutes regulating 
various non-safety aspects of motor vehicles give the agency similar

[[Page 33213]]

discretion to determine whether and to what extent low-speed vehicles 
should comply with the requirements of those statutes.
    a. Theft. NHTSA issued Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft 
Prevention Standard, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Chapter 331, Theft 
Prevention. The purpose of the standard is to reduce the incidence of 
passenger motor vehicle thefts by facilitating the tracing and recovery 
of parts from stolen vehicles. The standard seeks to facilitate such 
tracing by requiring marking of major component parts of higher theft 
vehicle lines.
    While LSVs subject to Standard No. 500 would be passenger motor 
vehicles under Chapter 331, NHTSA believes there would not, for the 
immediate future, be any reliable way of evaluating their likely theft 
rates. This is because LSVs do not currently exist as a vehicle class, 
and they are sufficiently different from other classes of vehicles to 
make comparisons related to theft unreliable. Thus, it could not be 
determined whether their rates were high enough to subject them to 
parts marking.
    Given that application of the Theft Prevention Standard is 
necessarily dependent on making determinations concerning theft rates, 
the agency has decided not to apply the standard to LSVs until there is 
sufficient information to make such determinations. Once sufficient 
information becomes available, NHTSA will revisit this issue.
    b. Content Labeling. The American Automobile Labeling Act (AALA), 
codified at 49 U.S.C. Sec. 32304, requires passenger motor vehicles to 
be labeled with information about their domestic and foreign content. 
More specifically, the Act generally requires each new passenger motor 
vehicle to be labeled with the following five items of information: (1) 
U.S./Canadian parts content, (2) major sources of foreign parts 
content, (3) the final assembly point by city, state (where 
appropriate), and country; (4) the country of origin of the engine 
parts, and (5) the country of origin of the transmission parts. The Act 
specifies that the first two items of information, the U.S./Canadian 
parts content and major sources of foreign parts content, are 
calculated on a ``carline'' basis rather than for each individual 
vehicle. NHTSA's regulations implementing the AALA are set forth in 
Part 583, Automobile Parts Content Labeling.
    NHTSA notes that the LSVs subject to Standard No. 500 come within 
the definition of ``passenger motor vehicle'' under the AALA. 
Therefore, manufacturers of LSVs are necessarily subject to the 
requirements of Part 583, subject to certain important limitations 
discussed below.
    A manufacturer that produces LSVs from various parts at a final 
assembly point is subject to Part 583 in the same manner as 
manufacturers of passenger cars and light trucks. The manufacturer is 
required to affix the required label containing content information to 
all new LSVs.\27\ The manufacturer must calculate the information for 
the label by using information provided to it by suppliers. Under Part 
583, the manufacturer is required to request its suppliers to provide 
the relevant content information specified in Part 583, and the 
suppliers are required to provide the specified information in response 
to such requests. The agency notes that it recently issued a letter of 
interpretation (dated March 5, 1998, and addressed to Erika Z. Jones, 
Esq.) concerning how Part 583 applies to electric vehicles. This letter 
is available on NHTSA's website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ A manufacturer that produces a total of fewer than 1000 
passenger motor vehicles in a model year is subject to more limited 
labeling requirements. See 49 CFR Sec. 583.5(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency has concluded that Part 583 does not, however, apply to 
dealers and entities that modify golf cars so that their top speed is 
increased so that it is between 20 and 25 mph. This conclusion is based 
on the overall structure of the AALA. The agency notes that it 
considered a similar issue in promulgating Part 583. NHTSA decided that 
alterers are not covered by the Act. The agency explained: ``Alterers 
modify completed vehicles, after they have left the manufacturer's 
final assembly point. The parts they use are not considered equipment 
by [the AALA], because they are never shipped to the final assembly 
point.'' 59 FR 37321; July 21, 1994. The agency notes that while the 
golf cars these dealers and other entities would be modifying are not 
considered motor vehicles prior to the modification, they are 
nonetheless completed vehicles after they have left the final assembly 
point. Therefore, NHTSA believes it is appropriate to apply the same 
result as it reached for alterers.
    c. Corporate Average Fuel Economy. NHTSA observes that LSVs are 
expected to have very high fuel economy because of their small size. 
Accordingly, a fleet consisting solely of LSVs should not have any 
difficulty meeting the corporate average fuel economy standards 
applicable to passenger motor vehicles and light trucks pursuant to 49 
U.S.C. Chapter 329, Automobile Fuel Economy. The standards are set 
forth at 49 CFR Parts 531 and 533. The agency notes that while it has 
the responsibility for setting fuel economy standards, the procedures 
for measuring and calculating fuel economy are established by EPA. See 
49 U.S.C. 32904.
    NHTSA enforces the fuel economy standards based on information 
developed by EPA under those procedures. However, the present EPA test 
procedure specifies that test vehicles must operate during testing at 
speeds that are above the capability of LSVs. Accordingly, the 
procedure cannot be used to measure the fuel economy of these vehicles.
    NHTSA will not enforce fuel economy standards, or regulations 
related to those standards (e.g., reporting requirements) for any 
vehicles for which EPA does not have procedures for measuring and 
calculating fuel economy. Manufacturers of LSVs, including modifiers of 
golf cars, should contact EPA concerning their emissions 
responsibilities and concerning any changes in that agency's procedures 
for measuring and calculating fuel economy.
    d. Bumper Standards. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 325, Bumper Standards, 
NHTSA is required to issue bumper standards for passenger motor 
vehicles. The purpose of that chapter is to reduce economic loss 
resulting from damage to passenger motor vehicles involved in motor 
vehicle crashes. Under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 32502(c), the agency may, for 
good cause, exempt from any part of a standard a multipurpose passenger 
vehicle or a make, model, or class of a passenger motor vehicle 
manufactured for a special use, if the standard would interfere 
unreasonably with the special use of the vehicle.
    NHTSA's regulations implementing Chapter 325 are set forth in Part 
581, Bumper Standard. The standard applies to passenger motor vehicles 
other than multipurpose passenger vehicles. The agency has not applied 
Part 581 to multipurpose passenger vehicles because of concerns that 
the standard could interfere with the use of these vehicles, 
particularly with respect to off-road operation.
    In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed to conclude that LSVs are not passenger 
motor vehicles within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 325, and that 
the bumper standard is therefore not applicable to LSVs. On further 
consideration, the agency has decided that it cannot make that 
conclusion consistent with Chapter 325. However, NHTSA has concluded 
that the special use rationale for not applying the Bumper Standard to 
multipurpose passenger vehicles also applies to LSVs subject to 
Standard No. 500. Many of these vehicles are golf cars

[[Page 33214]]

or are largely derived from golf cars. All or most are currently 
intended for both on-road and off-road use. Application of the Bumper 
Standard to these vehicles could interfere with off-road operation, 
e.g., the need of these vehicles to negotiate the uneven terrain of a 
golf course. Therefore, the agency finds good cause for exempting them 
from part 581.

V. Effective Date.

    The agency has decided to make its vehicle classification changes 
and new Standard No. 500 effective upon the publication of this final 
rule in the Federal Register. These actions relieve a restriction on 
the manufacturers of LSVs. They do so by bringing an immediate end to 
the regulatory conflict between State and local laws on the one hand 
and Federal laws on the other, and replacing the current impracticable 
and overly extensive set of Federal requirements with a set that is 
more appropriate and reasonable for this new, emerging class of 
vehicles. NEV manufacturers and modifiers of golf cars wish to have the 
opportunity to begin the manufacture and sale of vehicles complying 
with the new standard as soon as possible.
    The golf car industry's initial 36-month lead time request was 
based upon the proposed lower threshold of 15 miles per hour, the 
industry's opposition to seat belts and its wish to develop and 
implement an integrated rollover protection system that might require 
modifications to its existing vehicle designs. In its December 22, 1997 
letter, NGCMA shortened the requested lead time to 6 to 12 months, 
provided that seat belts were not required for their golf cars as 
originally manufactured. This request, like the first, was based on the 
proposed 15-mile-per-hour threshold. As noted above, the lower 
threshold has been raised to 20 miles per hour in this final rule, thus 
excluding golf cars as they are now originally manufactured, and 
resolving the lead time concerns of the golf car manufacturers.
    Bombardier indicated that its NEV is equipped to comply with the 
new standard, as proposed, and that it needed no lead time. Information 
in the VRTC study indicates that the Global Electric MotorCars' NEV 
complies, except for red reflex reflectors and mirrors which can be 
readily added.
    The remaining lead time issue concerns those golf car dealers who, 
on or after the effective date of the final rule, modify the maximum 
speed capability of golf cars so that it is between 20 and 25 miles per 
hour. The salient fact is that this rulemaking eliminates existing 
unnecessary restrictions on those modifications. Prior to the effective 
date, those speed modifications have the effect of converting the golf 
cars into passenger cars, making it necessary for the modifiers to 
conform the golf cars to the FMVSSs for passenger cars. Since such 
conformance is not practicable, modifiers are currently legally unable 
to increase the top speed of golf cars above 20 miles per hour. 
Beginning on the effective date, the legal obligations of the modifiers 
under the Vehicle Safety Act are significantly reduced. Instead of 
being responsible for conforming the golf cars with the FMVSSs for 
passenger cars, the modifiers will be responsible for conforming them 
with the less extensive array of requirements applicable to LSVs.
    In consideration of the foregoing, the agency has decided to make 
this final rule effective upon the publication of this final rule in 
the Federal Register. For the reasons discussed above, NHTSA finds that 
there is good cause for setting an effective date earlier than 180 days 
after issuance of the final rule is in the public interest. 
Accordingly, the final rule becomes effective upon publication in the 
Federal Register.

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This action is not significant under Executive Order 12866 and has 
not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that 
Executive Order. Further, this action is not significant under the 
Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedure. NHTSA 
has prepared and docketed a final regulatory evaluation (FRE) for this 
final rule.
    Since LSVs are a new type of motor vehicle, it is not possible to 
determine annual benefit and cost figures. As to benefits, the agency 
notes that the demand for sub-25 mph vehicles is currently being met 
primarily by fleet and personal golf cars and by speed-modified golf 
cars that were not originally manufactured for on-road use. If the 
agency did not take the actions specified in this final rule, the 
demand would continue to be met in that manner. The vehicles would be 
equipped with at least some of the safety features required by Standard 
No. 500, but not seat belts except in the City of Palm Desert. The 
issuance of this final rule ensures that the demand will be met in the 
future by vehicles originally manufactured for on-road use and equipped 
with the full array of safety features required by that standard.
    As to the costs of producing NEVs and other LSVs in compliance with 
Standard No. 500, the significance of those costs can be fully 
appreciated only by comparing them with the costs that the 
manufacturers of those vehicles would have had to bear in the absence 
of this rulemaking. If the agency had adopted the regulatory option of 
making no change in its regulations and standards, LSV manufacturers 
would have been subject to the considerably more costly array of 
passenger car standards.
    As discussed previously in this document, manufacturers of both the 
Bombardier NEV and Global Electric MotorCars NEV have designed their 
vehicles to incorporate basic safety equipment such as three-point seat 
belts, headlamps, and stop lamps before NHTSA's first public meeting in 
July 1996. In response to the NPRM, Bombardier termed the City of Palm 
Desert's requirements ``entirely practicable'' and remarked that 
``Indeed, Bombardier currently complies with these existing state 
safety equipment requirements'' (008). Although Global Electric 
MotorCars' predecessor, Trans2, was silent on the subject, its lack of 
comment and request for ``expedited rulemaking'' leading to a final 
rule by ``June 1997'' has been read to mean that it, too, found 
compliance with Standard No. 500 to be practicable (007).
    In NHTSA's judgment, the final rule will not affect golf car 
manufacturers since it applies only to vehicles with a top speed of 
more than 20 miles per hour and the industry has represented that it 
does not manufacture any such vehicles. Should a golf car ever be 
modified to have a top speed capability of 20 to 25 miles per hour, it 
would then be subject to Standard No. 500.
    In November 1993, the City of Palm Desert initiated a survey of 
golf car owners who registered their vehicles in its golf car program. 
The responses from 61 owners indicated that the cost to retrofit a golf 
car with the equipment prescribed by that city was an average of $150 
in January 1994. At the July 1996 public meeting in the City of Palm 
Desert, an Arizona golf car dealer estimated that the cost of adding 
the equipment required in Arizona (which does not include seat belts) 
could be as high as $400.
    This latter figure roughly accords with NHTSA's own total equipment 
cost estimates for taking a golf car that complies with none of the 
requirements in Standard No. 500 and modifying it to comply with the 
standard. In the FRE, the agency estimates $357 for modifying a golf 
car to conform to Standard No. 500 with a two-point belt system, and

[[Page 33215]]

$370 for achieving conformance with a three-point belt system (in 1997 
dollars). Either type of belt system is permissible under the new 
standard. NHTSA's cost estimates, however, do not cover the cost of 
modifications that a dealer or other commercial entity itself may deem 
desirable for the on-road use of a golf car, such as modifications to 
the brake system to accommodate faster speeds. NHTSA estimates that the 
compliance costs for the two current makes of NEVs will be only about 
$25 since they already have most of the required equipment. The 
additional cost is for side and rear reflex reflectors, driver or 
passenger side mirror, and a vehicle identification number label.

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 will 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 final rule primarily 
affects 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.''
    The record of this rulemaking indicates that there is only one 
entity in the United States that intends to produce an LSV as defined 
by the final rule, Global Electric MotorsCars. As noted in a footnote 
above, Global Electric MotorCars has taken over Trans2 Corporation and 
will market the Trans2 as the ``GEM.'' Therefore, it is ``dominant in 
its field of operation.'' A second entity that intends to manufacture 
LSVs, Bombardier, operates primarily outside the United States. There 
were four golf car manufacturers who commented on the NPRM, E-Z-Go 
Textron, Club Car, Inc., Melex, Inc., and Western Golf Car, all located 
in the United States. Golf car manufacturers are not ``manufacturers'' 
of LSVs under the final rule because the record indicates that none 
produces a vehicle whose maximum speed exceeds 20 miles per hour.
    However, a person who modifies a golf car so that its maximum speed 
is between 20 miles and 25 per hour is a ``manufacturer'' of an LSV and 
is legally responsible for its compliance and for certifying that 
compliance. As noted above in the discussion of the effective date, the 
salient fact with respect to the impact of this rulemaking on modifiers 
is that it replaces one set of requirements with which the modifiers 
cannot comply with a set with which they can comply. Prior to this 
final rule, those speed modifications convert the golf cars into 
passenger cars, making it necessary for the modifiers to conform the 
golf cars to the FMVSSs for passenger cars. Since this is not possible, 
modifiers have been legally unable to modify golf cars so that their 
top speed exceeds 20 miles per hour. Beginning on the effective date of 
this final rule, the legal obligations of the modifiers under the 
Vehicle Safety Act are significantly reduced. Instead of being 
responsible for conforming the golf cars with FMVSSs for that type of 
vehicle, the modifiers are responsible for conforming them with the 
less extensive array of requirements applicable to LSVs. Further, the 
equipment necessary to comply with Standard No. 500 can be obtained and 
added by modifiers readily and at moderate cost.
    Further, small organizations and governmental jurisdictions will 
not be significantly affected. The testimony at the public meetings and 
comments to the docket indicate that the purchasers of LSVs will 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. Nevertheless, the 
availability of these small vehicles to small organizations and 
governmental jurisdictions may assist them in reducing costs associated 
with their motor vehicle fleets and in achieving local clean air goals.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The vehicles affected by this final rule are presently classified 
as passenger cars and, as such, are subject to various information 
collection requirements, e.g., Part 537, Automotive Fuel Economy 
Reports (OMB Control No. 2127-0019); Part 566, Manufacturer 
Identification (OMB Control No. 2127-0043); Consolidated VIN and Theft 
Prevention Standard and Labeling Requirements (Parts 541, 565 and 
567)(OMB Control No. 2127-0510); Section 571.205, Glazing materials 
(OMB Control No. 2127-0038); Section 571.209, Seat belt assemblies (OMB 
Control No. 2127-0512); Part 573 Defect and Noncompliance Reports (OMB 
Control No. 2127-0004); Part 575, Consumer Information Regulations (OMB 
Control No. 2127-0049); and Part 576, Record Retention (OMB Control No. 
2127-0042). The final rule removes those vehicles from the passenger 
car class and places them in a new class, i.e., low-speed vehicles. As 
low-speed vehicles, they remain subject to those requirements.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism) and Unfunded Mandates

    This rulemaking has also been analyzed in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612. NHTSA has 
determined that this rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism 
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. 
This final rule will, as a practical matter, have only limited effect 
on state and local regulation of the safety equipment on golf cars and 
NEVs whose top speed qualifies them as LSVs.
    The definition of LSV in Standard No. 500 does not encompass a golf 
car with a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour or less, or a NEV with a 
maximum speed of more than 25 miles per hour. Thus, this final rule has 
no effect on the ability of state and local governments to specify 
requirements for vehicles other than LSVs. State and local governments 
continue to be able to adopt or continue to apply any safety equipment 
standard it wishes for golf cars with a maximum speed of 20 miles per 
hour or less.
    However, it does encompass golf cars and NEVs with a maximum speed 
greater than 20 miles per hour, but not greater than 25 miles per hour. 
Under the preemption provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1), with respect 
to those areas of a motor vehicle's safety performance regulated by the 
Federal government, any state and local safety standards addressing 
those areas must be identical. Thus, the state or local standard, if 
any, for vehicles classified as LSVs must be identical to Standard No. 
500 in those areas covered by that standard. For example, since 
Standard No. 500 addresses the subject of the type of lights which must 
be provided, state and local governments may not require additional 
types of lights. Further, since the agency has not specified 
performance requirements for any of the required lights, state and 
local governments may not do so either.
    NHTSA is not aware of any aspects of existing state laws that might 
be regarded as preempted by the issuance of this final rule. Those laws 
do not contain performance requirements for the items of equipment 
required by Standard No. 500. Further, state and local governments may 
supplement

[[Page 33216]]

Standard No. 500 in some respects. They may do so by requiring the 
installation of and regulate the performance of safety equipment not 
required by the standard. NHTSA wishes to make several other 
observations regarding the ability of state and local governments to 
make regulatory decisions regarding LSVs. First, NHTSA recognizes that 
while some states and local governments have taken steps to permit on-
road use of golf cars and LSVs, others have not. In the agency's view, 
this final rule does not alter the ability of states and local 
governments to make that decision for themselves. Similarly, this 
rulemaking has no effect on any other aspect of State or local 
regulation of golf carts and NEVs, including classification for 
taxation, vehicle and operator registration, and conditions of use upon 
their state and local roads.
    Second, the agency notes that the issuance of Standard No. 500 does 
not require current owners of golf cars having a top speed between 20 
to 25 miles per hour to retrofit those golf cars with the equipment 
specified in the standard. Standard No. 500 applies to new LSVs only. 
The decision whether to require retrofitting of golf cars that are 
already on the road remains in the domain of state and local law.
    In issuing this final rule, the agency notes, for the purposes of 
the Unfunded Mandates Act, that it is pursuing the least cost 
alternative for addressing the safety of LSVs. As noted above, the 
agency is substituting a less extensive, less expensive set of 
requirements for the existing full array of passenger car safety 
standards. Further, the agency is basing almost all of the requirements 
of Standard No. 500 on state and local requirements for on-road use of 
golf cars. Finally, the agency has not, at this time, adopted any 
performance requirements for the required items of safety equipment 
other than seat belts.
    State and local agencies in California and Arizona, including the 
California Air Resources Board, as well as Sierra Club California and a 
Florida State University professor who analyzed the deployment of 
electric cars in the MetroDade Transit System Station Car Program, 
submitted comments suggesting that the final rule will encourage the 
manufacture and use of electric vehicles and thus have beneficial 
environmental effects. Southern California Edison and the Arizona 
Economic Development Department noted at the first public meeting that 
their statements about such beneficial effects included consideration 
of power plant emissions. Commenters also indicated that any increase 
in the number of sub-25 mph vehicles as a result of this rulemaking is 
likely to be primarily in vehicles powered by electricity as opposed to 
gasoline. There is already a strong and growing interest in sub-25 mph 
cars that are electric. Commenters submitted data showing that over 60 
percent of conventional golf cars are electric and that the percentage 
has been fairly steadily increasing in this decade. Further, both NEVs 
are electric.
    The agency agrees with these comments, and believes that the final 
rule will have a generally stimulating effect on the deployment of 
electric LSVs. This final rule may also lead to modifications in the 
speed of conventional golf cars, and expanded use of these vehicles as 
LSVs. According to VRTC, these modified vehicles, too, are likely to be 
electric vehicles. They are generally easier to modify than LSVs with 
internal combustion engines to gain cost-effective, significant 
increases in speed.
    It is the judgment of the agency that this rule will not result in 
significant impacts to the environment, within the meaning of National 
Environmental Policy Act. The increased use of zero-emission electric 
vehicles, in lieu of vehicles with internal combustion engines, is 
likely to have a beneficial effect on the environment, particularly in 
urban corridors where air pollution is often greatest. However, 
inasmuch as LSVs are specialty vehicles with a relatively limited niche 
market, the environmental effects are necessarily limited in scope.

Civil Justice

    The final rule does 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 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

49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Incorporation by 
reference.

49 CFR Part 581

    Imports, Motor vehicles, Incorporation by reference.
    In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR parts 571 and 581 are 
amended as follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30166; delegation of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    2. Paragraph 571.3(b) is amended to add a definition of ``low-speed 
vehicle'' and to revise the definitions of ``multipurpose passenger 
vehicle,'' and ``passenger car,'' to read as follows:


Sec. 571.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    Low-speed vehicle means a 4-wheeled motor vehicle, other than a 
truck, whose speed attainable in 1.6 km (1 mile) is more than 32 
kilometers per hour (20 miles per hour) and not more than 40 kilometers 
per hour (25 miles per hour) on a paved level surface.
* * * * *
    Multipurpose passenger vehicle means a motor vehicle with motive 
power, except a low-speed vehicle or trailer, designed to carry 10 
persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with 
special features for occasional off-road operation.
* * * * *
    Passenger car means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a 
low-speed vehicle, multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or 
trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less.
* * * * *
    3. A new section 571.500 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 571.500  Standard No. 500; 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 
equipped with the minimum motor vehicle equipment appropriate for motor 
vehicle safety.
    S3. Applicability. This standard applies to low-speed vehicles.
    S4. (Reserved.)
    S5. Requirements.
    (a) When tested in accordance with test conditions in S6 and test 
procedures in S7, the maximum speed attainable in 1.6 km (1 mile) by 
each low-speed vehicle shall not more than 40 kilometers per hour (25 
miles per hour).
    (b) Each low-speed vehicle shall be equipped with:
    (1) headlamps,

[[Page 33217]]

    (2) front and rear turn signal lamps,
    (3) taillamps,
    (4) stop lamps,
    (5) reflex reflectors: one red on each side as far to the rear as 
practicable, and one red on the rear,
    (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 of AS-1 or AS-5 composition, that conforms to the 
American National Standard Institute's ``Safety Code for Safety Glazing 
Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways,'' Z-
26.1-1977, January 28, 1977, as supplemented by Z26.1a, July 3, 1980 
(incorporated by reference; see 49 CFR 571.5),
    (9) a VIN that conforms to the requirements of part 565 Vehicle 
Identification Number of this chapter, and
    (10) a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly conforming to Sec. 
571.209 of this part, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, 
Seat belt assemblies, installed at each designated seating position.
    S6. General test conditions. Each vehicle must meet the performance 
limit specified in S5(a) under the following test conditions.
    S6.1. Ambient conditions.
    S6.1.1. Ambient temperature. The ambient temperature is any 
temperature between 0  deg.C (32  deg.F) and 40  deg.C (104  deg.F).
    S6.1.2. Wind speed. The wind speed is not greater than 5 m/s (11.2 
mph).
    S6.2. Road test surface.
    S6.2.1. Pavement friction. Unless otherwise specified, the road 
test surface produces a peak friction coefficient (PFC) of 0.9 when 
measured using a standard reference test tire that meets the 
specifications of American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) 
E1136, ``Standard Specification for A Radial Standard Reference Test 
Tire,'' in accordance with ASTM Method E 1337-90, ``Standard Test 
Method for Determining Longitudinal Peak Braking Coefficient of Paved 
Surfaces Using a Standard Reference Test Tire,'' at a speed of 64.4 km/
h (40.0 mph), without water delivery (incorporated by reference; see 49 
CFR 571.5).
    S6.2.2. Gradient. The test surface has not more than a 1 percent 
gradient in the direction of testing and not more than a 2 percent 
gradient perpendicular to the direction of testing.
    S6.2.3. Lane width. The lane width is not less than 3.5 m (11.5 
ft).
    S6.3. Vehicle conditions.
    S6.3.1. The test weight for maximum speed is unloaded vehicle 
weight plus a mass of 78 kg (170 pounds), including driver and 
instrumentation.
    S6.3.2. No adjustment, repair or replacement of any component is 
allowed after the start of the first performance test.
    S6.3.3. Tire inflation pressure. Cold inflation pressure is not 
more than the maximum permissible pressure molded on the tire sidewall.
    S6.3.4. Break-in. The vehicle completes the manufacturer's 
recommended break-in agenda as a minimum condition prior to beginning 
the performance tests.
    S6.3.5. Vehicle openings. All vehicle openings (doors, windows, 
hood, trunk, convertible top, cargo doors, etc.) are closed except as 
required for instrumentation purposes.
    S6.3.6. Battery powered vehicles. Prior to beginning the 
performance tests, propulsion batteries are at the state of charge 
recommended by the manufacturer or, if the manufacturer has made no 
recommendation, at a state of charge of not less than 95 percent. No 
further charging of any propulsion battery is permissible.
    S7. Test procedure. Each vehicle must meet the performance limit 
specified in S5(a) under the following test procedure. The maximum 
speed performance is determined by measuring the maximum attainable 
vehicle speed at any point in a distance of 1.6 km (1.0 mile) from a 
standing start and repeated in the opposite direction within 30 
minutes.
* * * * *

PART 581--BUMPER STANDARD

    4. The authority citation for part 581 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 32502, 32504; delegation 
of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    5. Section 581.3 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 581.3  Application.

    This standard applies to passenger motor vehicles other than 
multipurpose passenger vehicles and low-speed vehicles as defined in 49 
CFR part 571.3(b).

    Issued on: June 9, 1998.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator
[FR Doc. 98-16003 Filed 6-12-98; 10:00 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P