[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 171 (Friday, September 1, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53219-53222]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-21777]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 565

[Docket No. NHTSA 98-3949; Notice 2]
RIN 2127-AH69


Low-Speed Vehicles

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

ACTION: Response to petitions for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This document responds to petitions for reconsideration of 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 500, Low-Speed Vehicles 
(LSV). We are treating most of the requests in the petitions as 
petitions for rulemaking. The request that we are granting is either to 
immediately adopt performance requirements for the parking brake, 
mirrors, and lighting equipment required by the standard, or, in the 
alternative, allow States to set their own requirements. In response to 
that request, we have reviewed our decision at the time of Standard No. 
500's issuance to assert preemption. We have decided that, until we can 
establish performance requirements for parking brake, mirrors, and 
lighting equipment installed on LSVs, we will not assert preemption. 
Thus, States may establish or maintain their own performance 
requirements for these equipment items.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    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).
    For technical issues: Richard Van Iderstine, Office of Crash 
Avoidance Standards, NHTSA, Room 5307, 400 7th Street, SW, Washington, 
DC 20590 (telephone 202-366-4931; fax 202-366-4329).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Final Rule: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 500, Low-
Speed Vehicles

    On June 17, 1998, we published a final rule establishing Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 500, Low-Speed Vehicles (63 FR 
33194), effective on that date. This standard was based upon an NPRM 
published on January 8, 1997 (62 FR 1077). We are now responding to the 
petitions for reconsideration of Standard No. 500 that we received.
    In the Standard, we defined a ``low-speed vehicle'' (LSV) as a 4-
wheeled motor vehicle, other than a truck, whose speed attainable in 
1.6 km (1 mi) is more than 32 km/h (20 mph), but not more than 40 km/h 
(25 mph) on a paved level surface. The definition reflected the intent 
of the rule which was to relieve LSVs of the legal obligation to comply 
with Federal motor vehicle safety standards more appropriate for faster 
vehicles, and to adopt a Federal standard tailored to the more modest 
speed capabilities of LSVs.
    We based the substance of Standard No. 500 upon the requirements of 
Palm Desert, California, which has been licensing ``golf carts'' as 
defined under state law for use on certain streets since 1993. In 
parallel with Palm Desert's specifications, Standard No. 500 requires 
LSVs to be equipped with headlamps, front and rear turn signal lamps, 
taillamps, stop lamps, reflex reflectors, rearview mirrors, and a 
parking brake. We were more specific than Palm Desert in specifying 
that a windshield be provided that is of AS-1 or AS-5 composition, and 
that seat belt assemblies be either Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 (lap and 
shoulder) complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, 
Seat Belt Assemblies. We also decided to require that LSVs be equipped 
with a Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) meeting the specifications 
of 49 CFR Part 565. However, we did not specify any performance 
requirements for the lighting equipment, mirrors, or parking brake, 
saying that we would consider the possibility of proposing performance 
requirements for them, as well as other requirements that might be 
appropriate for slow-moving small vehicles, in response to our 
monitoring the safety record of LSVs (63 FR 33212).
    In the final rule, we also addressed several matters concerning the 
effect of Standard No. 500 on state and local laws (63 FR 33197). 
First, we stated that the final rule did not affect the ability of 
states and local governments to decide for themselves whether to permit 
on-road use of golf cars and LSVs. Second, we advised that state and 
local governments could supplement Standard No. 500 by requiring the 
installation and performance of equipment not required by Standard No. 
500, such as a horn. However, we stated that state and local 
governments were preempted from specifying performance requirements for 
lighting equipment, mirrors, and parking brake because we had not 
specified performance requirements for them. Finally, we noted that the 
decision whether to require retrofitting of faster golf cars in use at 
the time of the final rule, and which would have been LSVs if 
manufactured on or after that time, remained in the domain of state and 
local law. We also noted that the final rule had no effect on other 
aspects of state or local regulation of golf cars and Neighborhood 
Vehicles (NVs) ``including classification for taxation, vehicle and 
operator registration, and conditions of use upon their state and local 
roads.'' (63 FR 33216).

Petitions for Reconsideration

    We received petitions for reconsideration of Standard No. 500 from 
the Department of Motor Vehicles of the State of Connecticut 
(``Connecticut''), the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles 
of the State of Florida (``Florida''), American Association of Motor 
Vehicle Administrators (``AAMVA'') and

[[Page 53220]]

Solectria Corporation (``Solectria''), a manufacturer of electric 
vehicles, which was supported by Electric Transportation Coalition. We 
also received a request for assistance from Global Electric Motors, a 
manufacturer of LSVs (``Global'').
    We discuss below the issues raised by the petitions and our 
disposition of them.

1. Whether Standard No. 500 Should Be Applicable to Low-Speed Light 
Trucks

    Solectria, seconded by Electric Transportation Coalition, asked 
that we reconsider our exclusion of ``trucks'' from the definition of 
LSV. Solectria believes that we intended ``to exclude heavy 
construction equipment,'' and that vehicles like its ``Flash micro 
electric pickup truck'' are ``sufficiently unique and useful as to 
warrant a change in the wording.'' The Solectria truck, according to 
its manufacturer, is ``suitable'' for such uses off the public roads as 
on airport property, college campuses, in ``environmentally sensitive 
national parks and recreation areas,'' and for ``virtually any other 
use which requires a small pickup truck with modest payload for short 
trips.'' To require this light truck to meet Federal motor vehicle 
safety standards for side impact, and front impact testing and air 
bags, would, in its manufacturer's opinion, require such re-engineering 
and development costs as to render the vehicle unsuitable for its 
intended applications. Solectria therefore asked that we amend the 
definition of LSV to exclude trucks with ``a maximum allowable curb 
weight'' of more than 1,000 kg. (2,200 lbs.). Eventually, Solectria 
intends to offer a micro van version of the vehicle. Because the micro 
van meets the definition of LSV, Solectria argued that ``it is 
inconsistent that the pickup truck version be excluded merely because 
it would be carrying goods in an outside container, rather than 
carrying passengers in an enclosure.''
    In our January 1997 proposal (see 62 FR at 1086), we defined the 
term ``low-speed vehicle'' without reference to whether the LSV was a 
passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, or truck. However, a 
``low-speed vehicle with work performing features'' would have been 
excluded from the equipment requirements of Standard No. 100 (as 
Standard No. 500 was then numbered). This would have had the unintended 
result that these vehicles would have been relieved of the necessity of 
complying with the Federal standards they were already meeting. In 
short, an excluded vehicle would not have been required to meet any 
Federal motor vehicle safety standard at all. None of the commenters 
addressed this issue.
    In issuing the final rule, we decided that an LSV with ``work 
performing features'' should continue to be treated as a truck, and 
that there was no reason to include low-speed trucks in a rule intended 
to relieve restrictions on low-speed passenger cars. Thus, instead of 
relieving low-speed trucks of the need to meet any Federal motor 
vehicle safety standard as the January 1997 NPRM would have done, 
Standard No. 500 ensures that such trucks must continue to meet the 
Federal standards that have always applied to trucks with a maximum 
speed of more than 20 miles per hour. We considered this decision to be 
``consistent with the rationale of this rulemaking, which is to 
eliminate a regulatory conflict involving passenger-carrying vehicles'' 
(63 FR at 33198), and concluded 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.''
    We are still considering this petition, and have not reached a 
decision whether to grant or to deny it. Our decision will be reflected 
in the notice of proposed rulemaking under consideration for 
establishing performance requirements for safety equipment on LSVs that 
we discuss below.

2. Whether the Required Safety Equipment Should Have Performance 
Specifications; Whether Such Specifications Should be Promulgated by 
NHTSA or by the States.

    Connecticut asked us to reconsider our issuance of a Standard No. 
500 devoid of performance requirements for the ``lighting, mirrors, 
brakes and reflectors,'' and asked that we incorporate ``at least 
minimum performance standards'' for those items of equipment. It 
commented that our decision not to adopt any performance requirements 
was ``troubling * * * due to both policy considerations and the 
creation of a possible conflict with'' state statutes that specify 
requirements for those items of equipment. Florida's comment was 
similar. As an example, both states cited their local statute requiring 
any vehicle operated on the highway to be equipped with red taillamps 
that can be seen from a distance of 1,000 feet. Florida requires that 
such vehicles have multiple beam headlamps capable of illuminating 
persons or vehicles at least 450 feet ahead on upper beam and 150 feet 
ahead on lower beam. Connecticut stated that the lack of specifications 
and its inability to promulgate them because it is preempted from doing 
so by Standard No. 500 creates ``an apparent dilemma'' for any state 
that ``does not now permit LSVs to engage in general highway use but 
may wish to consider doing so.'' If NHTSA issues performance 
requirements, ``Connecticut could then assess [them] and use as 
benchmark to make decisions regarding the extent to which highway 
operation of LSVs will be permitted.'' Both states comment that ``the 
decision in the final rule not to include performance standards does 
not appear to us to be a prudent exercise of federal preemption 
authority.''
    AAMVA, ``on behalf of the motor vehicle community,'' submitted a 
similar comment. It believes that without standards, ``manufacturers 
are free to install any color or candlepower on headlights, any braking 
capacity no matter how minimal, etc.'' In AAMVA's view, ``this seems to 
contradict the rule's apparent intention to make such vehicles road-
worthy.'' Accordingly, it asks NHTSA either to ``set federal standards 
for safety equipment or else allow jurisdictions to set their own.'' It 
also asked NHTSA to ``postpone the effective date of the final rule to 
accommodate legislative changes needed,'' so that ``safety equipment 
issues [can be] addressed and state legislatures have sufficient time 
to make any necessary changes to their laws and regulations.''
    We explained in the preamble of the June 1998 final rule that we 
were not, at that time, issuing performance specifications for 
equipment required on LSVs, but would consider what might be 
appropriate after we monitor their safety records.
    In our January 1997 proposal, we discussed the safety record of 
small vehicles in low-speed environments and an appropriate safety 
standard (62 FR 1081-83). Because of the scarcity of four-wheeled 
limited-speed vehicles in operation in the United States, virtually no 
data were available concerning crashes that had unmistakably occurred 
on the public roads. Comments indicated that safety had not been a 
problem. Data from Palm Desert, which had had the most experience with 
on-road golf cars, indicated that the safety record of these slow-
moving vehicles was exemplary when they were operated on the city 
streets in environments with heavier and faster-moving vehicles. In our 
opinion, the lack of crashes was attributable in part to the roadway 
schemes and operating restrictions that Palm Desert had established. We 
commended those schemes and restrictions to other jurisdictions 
considering permitting on-

[[Page 53221]]

road use of golf cars. While recognizing that the safety record of low-
speed vehicles might change with increases in their numbers, we 
tentatively concluded on the basis of the existing safety record that 
safety would be met by proposing that LSVs be furnished with safety 
equipment meeting the Palm Desert requirements. We also tentatively 
concluded that motor vehicle safety did not necessitate, ``for the 
present, a comprehensive and detailed regulatory scheme under which 
LSVs must comply with the full range of Federal motor vehicle safety 
standards that apply to faster vehicles'' (62 FR 1082). Comments by two 
manufacturers of neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs) indicated that 
their vehicles were already equipped in accordance with Palm Desert's 
requirements.
    With one exception, State officials responding to the proposed rule 
supported it, commenting on the beneficial effects it would have on the 
environment. However, Iowa Department of Transportation listed, without 
discussion, 13 concerns that it had, one of which was ``administration 
of state safety standards.'' (Comment 022, D.I. MacGillivray, P.E., 
Director, Engineering Division). It was not until after the final rule 
that state concerns came to the forefront as represented by the 
comments of AAMVA, Connecticut, and Florida.
    We recognize that a requirement for LSVs to be equipped with an 
item of equipment without specifying its performance can result in the 
introduction of LSVs by different manufacturers whose safety equipment 
would not perform in an identical manner. We also recognize that 
allowing a manufacturer total freedom in the choice regarding the 
performance of equipment could result in its installation of equipment 
that might not be satisfactory. However, without first providing notice 
and opportunity to comment, we cannot now respond to the petitions for 
reconsideration by amending Standard No. 500 to specify performance 
requirements for lighting equipment, mirrors, the parking brake, or any 
other equipment that the commenters desired or deemed necessary. For 
these reasons, we have decided to treat the petitions for 
reconsideration by Connecticut, Florida, and AAMVA as petitions for 
rulemaking and are granting them. We will begin to develop appropriate 
performance specifications for LSVs, with the intent of proposing and 
adopting them.
    Until performance requirements can be proposed and adopted, the 
states could be faced with a continuation of the status quo to which 
they objected in their petitions for reconsideration. AAMVA's 
alternative request was that the states be allowed to set their own 
performance requirements for LSVs. This raises the question of the 
extent to which state action is allowable by the preemption provisions 
of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b) provides as follows:

    PREEMPTION--(1) When a motor vehicle safety standard is in 
effect * * *, a State or political subdivision of a State may 
prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same 
aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment 
only if the standard is identical to the [Federal] standard * * * *

In adopting the final rule, we commented that this language precluded 
states, for example, from requiring additional types of lamps to those 
specified in Standard No. 500. We went on to say that since we had not 
``specified performance requirements for any of the required lights, 
state and local governments may not do so either'' (p. 33215), and that 
we were not aware of any aspects of existing state laws that might be 
regarded as preempted by issuance of the final rule, as ``those laws do 
not contain performance requirements for the items of equipment 
required by Standard No. 500.''
    In light of the petitions, we have re-examined our statements about 
preemption in the preamble of the final rule. In those statements, we 
explained that, in view of our conscious decision not to adopt any 
performance requirements for most of the types of equipment required by 
Standard No. 500, the states were preempted from doing so. This is 
known as ``negative preemption.'' Except in the relatively rare 
situations that an agency ``occupies the field'' under the regulatory 
statute that it administers, negative preemption only applies when it 
is clear that the decision not to regulate is meant to preclude state 
regulation of the matters in question. As a result of re-examining our 
views, we have concluded that we should not assert negative preemption 
in this particular situation. Accordingly, we agree that the states may 
adopt and apply their own performance requirements for required LSV 
lighting equipment, mirrors, and parking brakes until we have 
established performance requirements for those items of equipment. 
However, the states remain precluded from adopting additional equipment 
requirements in areas covered by Standard No. 500.
    AAMVA also asked NHTSA to ``postpone the effective date of the 
final rule to accommodate legislative changes needed,'' so that 
``safety equipment issues [can be] addressed and state legislatures 
have sufficient time to make any necessary changes to their laws and 
regulations.'' AAMVA, in effect, was asking us to suspend Standard No. 
500 (we cannot ``postpone'' the effective date since that was the date 
on which the standard was published). This request appears related to 
the request that states be allowed to adopt their own requirements. We 
believe that we have responded to that concern by changing our position 
on negative preemption. We therefore deny its petition to ``postpone'' 
the effective date of Standard No. 500.
    We reiterate that our action in creating the LSV category does not 
in any way affect the rights of a state to establish its own 
registration and operating requirements for LSVs or even to forbid 
their use on the public roads of the State.

3. Request for Assistance

    Subsequent to the comment period, Global e-mailed the agency 
requesting assistance and clarification, but not petitioning for 
rulemaking. Global had three requests.
    The first request was for ``NHTSA assistance in informing state DOT 
officials of the new LSV ruling and development of recommendations 
regarding registering and licensing of the vehicle.'' Through our 
Regional Administrators, we are providing copies of this notice to 
state Departments of Motor Vehicles (``DMVs'') so to assist the states 
in accommodating the new vehicle category within their regulatory 
framework. Because vehicle registration and licensing are exclusively 
within the authority of each state, we decline Global's request that we 
develop recommendations on registering and licensing of LSVs for those 
states that have not moved to allow LSVs on their roads.
    The second request was for us to provide ``Recommendations on 
sources of technical assistance that could help [Global] promote 
examples of model legislation or rulemaking controlling vehicle usage 
that could be adopted by the states to establish a more or less uniform 
code throughout the country.'' We recommended in the preamble to the 
final rule that states might wish to review the plan of Palm Desert for 
suitability to local needs. For a more uniform national code of 
registration and usage, we recommend that LSV manufacturers and states 
work with AAMVA to develop model legislation.
    The third request was for ``A thorough explanation of the 
implications of the LSV ruling for [Global's] internal use in order for 
[it] to be able to more effectively work with states and

[[Page 53222]]

localities that are reluctant to allow [its] vehicle to be registered 
and licensed for use on roads and streets, although they have not taken 
action to disallow that use.'' We interpret this as a request for 
advice on how a manufacturer should approach those states whose laws 
neither specifically permit or prohibit LSVs on their roads, in short, 
a regulatory limbo. This situation can only be resolved on a state-by-
state basis. We repeat that it is for each individual state to decide 
whether LSVs should be registered and licensed for use on state roads, 
and the conditions under which this should occur.

Corrections

    Two comments were received correcting information contained in the 
preamble to the final rule. At 63 FR 33196, we observed that the City 
of Palm Desert 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.'' Jacques Leslie, 
Contributing Writer, Wired Magazine, cites the relevant report by 
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates for the City of Palm Desert, 
which concluded that the reduction of pollutants in the first year of 
the program (1996) was ``nearly 4 tons,'' because of the substitution 
of use of golf cars for passenger cars, and that this was the ``worst 
case as emission factors would decrease in later years due to 
controls.'' Also, at 63 FR 33197, based on industry sources, we stated 
that ``1 percent of Club Car's fleet golf cars * * * have a top speed 
between 15 and 20 miles per hour.'' Club Car's Washington attorney, 
Eileen P. Bradner, has informed us that none of Club Car's fleet golf 
cars are manufactured with top speeds exceeding 15 miles per hour.

    Issued on: August 22, 2000.
L. Robert Shelton,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 00-21777 Filed 8-31-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P