[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 134 (Friday, July 12, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46149-46163]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-17422]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2002-12538]
RIN 2127-AI84


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Low Speed Vehicles; 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document responds to a petition for rulemaking from 
General Motors Corporation concerning low-speed vehicles. A low-speed 
vehicle is defined as a four-wheeled vehicle, other than a truck, whose 
maximum speed is between 20 and 25 miles per hour. The petitioner 
requested that the agency initiate rulemaking to amend the Federal 
motor vehicle safety standard for low-speed vehicles to require those 
vehicles to bear a label identifying safety hazards associated with the 
operation of low-speed vehicles in mixed traffic, i.e., on roads used 
by regular vehicles, and to be equipped with additional conspicuity 
features to make low-speed vehicles more visible to other vehicles.
    The agency is granting both requests. In this document, the agency 
is proposing to amend the standard to require low-speed vehicles to 
bear a warning label to ensure that drivers of those vehicles are 
alerted to the hazards associated with the operation of low-speed 
vehicles in mixed traffic. The agency is also proposing that low-speed 
vehicles be equipped with reflex reflectors or retroreflective 
conspicuity sheeting, a slow-moving vehicle emblem, and headlamps, 
taillamps, and side marker lamps that are illuminated while the low-
speed vehicle is being operated to enhance their conspicuity.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that 
Docket Management receives them not later than September 10, 2002.

ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments in writing to: Docket 
Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. 
Alternatively, you may submit your comments electronically by logging 
onto the Docket Management System (DMS) Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. 
Click on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to view instructions 
for filing your comments electronically. Regardless of how you submit 
your comments, you should mention the docket number of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical and policy issues, you 
may call Richard Van Iderstine, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, 
Visibility and Injury Prevention Division (Telephone: 202-366-2720, 
Fax: 202-493-2739).
    For legal issues, you may call Dion Casey, Office of Chief Counsel 
(Telephone: 202-366-2992, Fax: 202-366-3820).
    You may send mail to either of these officials at National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Petition
III. Discussion and Analysis
    A. Authority to Regulate Anticipated Safety Problems
    B. Safety Problem
IV. Agency Proposal
    A. Summary of the Proposal
    B. Warning Label
    C. Reflex Reflectors or Retroreflective Sheeting
    D. Slow Moving Vehicle Emblem
    E. Side Marker Lamps
    F. Headlamps, Taillamps, and Side Marker Lamps Illuminated While 
LSV is Being Operated
    G. Notifying State Agencies and Monitoring LSV Usage
    H. Questions on this Proposal
    I. Lead Time
V. Costs
VI. Benefits
VII. Regulatory Analyses

I. Background

    In the late 1990s, there was a growing public interest in using 
golf cars \1\to

[[Page 46150]]

make short trips for shopping, social, and recreational purposes, 
primarily within retirement or other planned communities with golf 
courses. At the time, 12 states had passed legislation authorizing 
local jurisdictions to permit general on-road use of these vehicles, 
subject to speed and/or operational limits.\2\ A majority of these 
states conditioned the on-road use of golf cars upon their being 
equipped with specified safety equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These vehicles, referred to variously as ``golf cars,'' 
``golf carts,'' or ``neighborhood electric vehicles'' (NEVs), offer 
a variety of advantages. They are low-cost and energy efficient. 
Also, since many of these vehicles are electric-powered, they 
provide quieter transportation that does not pollute the air of the 
communities in which they are operated.
    \2\ These states were Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, 
Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and 
Wyoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the increased use of golf cars on public roads had 
resulted in several deaths and numerous serious injuries. By 1998, 
NHTSA estimated that there were an average of 3 deaths and 222 injuries 
per year as a result of on-road crashes involving golf cars.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ (63 FR 33206, June 17, 1998). The deaths and injuries were 
estimated for the years 1993 through 1998. Most golf cars are not 
low speed vehicles as defined in 49 CFR 571.3 because their maximum 
speed typically is less than 20 mph. However, NHTSA used crash data 
for golf cars in the final rule because the agency did not have any 
crash data on low speed vehicles, and because, with the exception of 
their speed capability, golf cars and LSVs are similar in design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, NHTSA published a final rule establishing Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 500, ``Low-Speed Vehicles.'' (63 FR 
33193, June 17, 1998). A ``low-speed vehicle'' is defined as a four-
wheeled motor vehicle, other than a truck, whose maximum speed is 
between 20 and 25 miles per hour. (49 CFR 571.3).\4\ Standard No. 500 
requires an LSV to be equipped with headlamps, front and rear turn 
signal lamps, tail lamps, stop lamps, reflex reflectors, exterior and/
or interior mirrors, a parking brake, a windshield, a Vehicle 
Identification Number (VIN), and a seat belt assembly at each 
designated seating position. (49 CFR 571.500). LSVs do not have to 
comply with any other Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As noted above, most golf cars are not LSVs because their 
maximum speed typically is less than 20 mph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the time of the final rule, NHTSA anticipated that sales of LSVs 
would grow, and, as a result, deaths and serious injuries resulting 
from crashes involving LSVs would occur.\5\ The agency also committed 
to monitor the safety record of LSVs as their use increased, and to 
consider whether the requirements of Standard No. 500 meet the 
anticipated safety needs of LSV users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NHTSA does not have any evidence of the number of deaths and 
injuries that have resulted from crashes between LSVs and 
conventional motor vehicles since 1998. This is primarily because 
many States do not require LSVs to be registered as motor vehicles. 
Thus, NHTSA had no way to track LSVs. The agency has requested that 
the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), 
which represents State motor vehicle and law enforcement officials, 
encourage States to require LSVs to be registered as motor vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA notes that in a September 1, 2000 Federal Register notice \6\ 
responding to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule 
establishing Standard No. 500, the agency decided to treat several of 
the petitions as petitions for rulemaking. The agency stated: ``We will 
begin to develop appropriate performance specifications for LSVs, with 
the intent of proposing and adopting them.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 65 FR 53219.
    \7\ 65 FR 53221.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency is not proposing any performance specifications in this 
document because of time considerations. As noted in the GM petition, 
some State ZEV mandates, including California's, will take effect this 
year, potentially causing a rapid increase in the number of LSVs 
operated on public roadways. In order to address this situation, the 
agency needed to propose a rule with requirements that could be 
implemented quickly and easily. The agency believes that the best way 
to do that is by requiring LSVs to be equipped with additional 
conspicuity features since such features can be added relatively 
quickly and easily. However, the agency is continuing to develop 
performance specifications for LSVs and remains committed to proposing 
such specifications in the future.

II. Petition

    On January 9, 2002, the agency received a petition from General 
Motors Corporation (GM). GM requested that the agency amend Standard 
No. 500 to require all low-speed vehicles to be equipped with a label 
identifying safety hazards associated with the operation of low-speed 
vehicles in mixed traffic, and additional conspicuity features, such as 
paint color/markings or roof flags, to make low-speed vehicles more 
visible to other vehicles. GM also requested that the agency take the 
following steps related to the safety of LSVs:

    (1) Notify state governmental agencies with responsibility for 
traffic safety of the potential risks associated with increased 
operation of LSVs on public roadways where they will potentially 
interact with conventional vehicles at substantial speeds and 
encourage those state agencies to consider appropriate measures to 
reduce the potential for harm.
    (2) Monitor closely any increased usage of LSVs on public roads 
for the incidence of collisions and resulting injuries to determine 
if stronger measures should be incorporated in FMVSS 500 in the 
future to avoid any unreasonable risk to safety.

    In support of its petition, GM noted that LSVs, with a top speed of 
25 mph, move much more slowly than conventional motor vehicles.\8\ In 
addition, because they have a much less substantial structure than 
conventional motor vehicles and thus less crashworthy, safety concerns 
necessarily arise when LSVs are operated in mixed traffic, i.e., with 
larger and faster motor vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ GM uses the phrases ``standard vehicles,'' ``regular 
vehicles,'' and ``conventional vehicles'' to refer to motor vehicles 
other than LSVs, i.e., motor vehicles that are subject to the 
relevant Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In this document, 
the agency will refer to these motor vehicles as ``conventional 
vehicles.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GM also noted that in the 1998 final rule establishing Standard No. 
500, NHTSA concluded that data available at that time did not support a 
requirement that LSVs meet the same safety requirements as conventional 
motor vehicles. The agency reasoned that the volume of LSVs was very 
small and that the natural market for LSVs seemed to be in places with 
controlled operating environments, such as gated or planned 
communities, typically built near golf courses. In addition, at that 
time the State of California, the largest likely market for LSVs, 
generally permitted LSVs on public roads only in localities that had 
adopted golf cart transportation plans, including separate golf cart 
lanes. At that time, only a few localities had done so.
    In its petition, GM stated that circumstances have changed in two 
relevant ways since the final rule was issued:

    First, the volume of NEVs [neighborhood electric vehicles] is 
growing substantially as a result of new regulations promulgated in 
several states. Specifically, NEVs qualify as zero emission vehicles 
[ZEVs] under state regulations that, if implemented, would mandate 
that vehicles with no tailpipe emissions be produced and sold as a 
condition to selling regular cars and trucks in the states that 
adopt the mandate. Known as the ZEV mandate, this requirement 
originated in California and is also under consideration in 
Massachusetts, New York, and Vermont. GM believes that the volume of 
NEVs in California alone will increase many fold from the current 
low levels--perhaps to as many as 50,000 units--by the end of 2002 
and grown even higher beyond that. To the extent the Northeast 
states adopt and implement this mandate, the numbers will increase 
proportionately, even though these states have many fewer operating 
environments well suited to NEVs. In all four states, the growth in 
NEV volume will be far greater under the ZEV mandate than natural 
market forces would foster in the absence of these mandates.

[[Page 46151]]

    Second, states that are likely to experience this proliferation 
of NEVs have not adopted the prudent restrictions that formerly 
limited LSVs to separated lanes on roads specifically designated for 
LSV use as part of specific, locally adopted golf cart 
transportation plans. In California, a state law enacted in 1999 
(the year after NHTSA adopted the current rule) provides that LSVs 
may be operated on any roads with speed limits up to 35 mph, unless 
state or local regulators decide to impose tighter restrictions on 
specific roads.\9\ A similar law was passed last year in New York. 
We are aware of no restrictions that bar LSVs from any roads in 
Massachusetts or Vermont. Traffic safety statistics show that 48% of 
vehicle accidents (other than those involving pedestrians and 
cyclists) occur on roads with posted speeds of 35 mph or less. The 
risk of injury to LSV occupants is, of course, substantially 
affected by the differences in speed and mass between the LSV and 
the other crash vehicle. In a crash between an LSV (with a top speed 
of 25 mph) and a conventional vehicle traveling at least 10 mph 
faster, for example, the energy contributed to the crash by the 
conventional vehicle, ignoring mass difference, will be at minimum 
nearly 100% greater than the energy contributed by the LSV. When we 
then take account of the very large mass differences between LSVs 
and standard vehicles, together with the fact that the actual speed 
of conventional vehicles on these roads will very often exceed 35 
mph, the risks of severe injury or death to LSV occupants grow even 
larger.

    \9\ GM claimed: ``The effect of the California law change is to 
allow LSVs to use the vast majority of (and in many cases virtually 
all) non-freeway roads in major California cities such as Los 
Angeles. This includes major urban and suburban thoroughfares on 
which vehicles routinely travel 40-50-60 mph notwithstanding posted 
speed limits of 30-35 mph. The California Highway Patrol foresaw the 
concern we are raising in its 1999 study on golf cart transportation 
plans. On page 13, that study states, `Part of the success of the 
Palm Desert and Sun City Roseville programs is the constant 
attention to ensuring safety by separating golf carts from other 
traffic and pedestrians via lane striping and other measures. Safety 
may be compromised should programs deviate from this practice and * 
* * allow golf carts to mix with vehicular traffic on roadways with 
a speed limit of more than 25 mph. * * *' California Highway Patrol 
Report to the Legislature, Golf Cart Transportation Plans in 
California, at 13 (August 1999).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GM claimed that these two new circumstances combine to create a 
sharply increased risk of injury for LSV occupants unless NHTSA adopts 
measures to mitigate the risk. GM admitted that it cannot precisely 
estimate the magnitude of the increased risk for two reasons: (1) 
because the LSV population is currently small, real world crash 
statistics involving LSVs are sparse; and (2) it is still too early to 
know the effect of the state law mandates on the number of LSVs sold. 
However, GM stated that ``it is clear that a real basis for concern now 
exists and that the increased risk will be discernible unless effective 
measures are promptly taken.''
    To mitigate the increased risk described above, GM requested that 
the agency amend Standard No. 500 to require all LSVs to be equipped 
with a label reading as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12JY02.004

    GM also requested that the agency amend Standard No. 500 to require 
LSVs to be equipped with additional conspicuity features.\10\ GM 
suggested that the agency require the canopy of LSVs to be painted a 
certain color, such as bright yellow or chartreuse/neon green, require 
LSVs to display a colorful flag or banner elevated above the roofline, 
and/or require LSVs to be equipped with additional plastic reflectors 
or reflecting tape.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Currently, Standard No. 500 requires LSVs to be equipped 
with reflex reflectors: one red on each side of the LSV as far to 
the rear as practicable, and one red on the rear of the LSV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, GM urged the agency to issue these amendments as soon as 
possible because thousands of additional LSVs could be purchased in the 
next year or two in at least four states. GM also requested that the 
agency implement a short phase-in period for these new requirements.

III. Discussion and Analysis

A. Authority To Regulate Anticipated Safety Problems

    In the final rule establishing Standard No. 500, NHTSA made it 
clear that it has the authority to regulate anticipated as well as 
current safety problems. The agency stated:

    NHTSA observes that its authority is preventive in nature. 
Congress has charged it with issuing standards to protect the public

[[Page 46152]]

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.

(63 FR 33206, June 17, 1998).
    The agency also made it clear that it intended to track any safety 
problems resulting from the use of LSVs and, if warranted, adjust the 
standard:

    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.


(63 FR 33212).
    NHTSA believes that it is reasonable to anticipate deaths and 
injuries resulting from crashes involving LSVs for the following 
reasons. First, as noted in the GM petition, more States are permitting 
the operation of LSVs. Second, as explained below, most of these States 
are not limiting LSV operation to controlled environments or to 
separate, marked traffic lanes. Instead, they are permitting the 
operation of LSVs on public roads with speed limits up to 35 mph. Thus, 
LSVs will be operated in a mixed traffic environment, with much 
heavier, faster, and aggressive conventional motor vehicles. Third, 
LSVs offer less crash protection than conventional motor vehicles.
    NHTSA does not have any current national sales figures for LSVs. 
However, Global Electric Motorcars (GEM), the largest U.S. LSV 
manufacturer, produced more than 5,000 LSVs in 2000.\11\ Moreover, 
NHTSA expects LSVs to be used to meet State Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) 
mandates that, if implemented, would require vehicles with no tailpipe 
emissions to be produced and sold as a condition of selling 
conventional motor vehicles in the States that adopt these regulations. 
Many LSVs would qualify as ZEVs because they are fully electric 
vehicles powered by batteries. Currently, ZEV mandates are being 
considered in California, Massachusetts, and New York. In its petition 
GM stated that if these regulations are implemented, ``GM believes that 
the volume of [LSVs] in California alone will increase many fold from 
the current low levels `` to perhaps as many as 50,000 units ``by the 
end of 2002 and grow even higher beyond that.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``DaimlerChrysler Corporation to Sell Zero-Emission 
Neighborhood Electric Vehicles,'' October 23, 2000, available at 
http://www.gemcar.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Safety Problem

    In the 1998 final rule, the agency estimated that there were an 
average of 3 deaths and 222 injuries per year as a result of on-road 
crashes involving golf cars.\12\ As noted above, golf cars are not 
LSVs, as defined in 49 CFR 571.3, because their maximum speed typically 
is less than 20 mph. However, NHTSA used crash data for golf cars in 
the final rule because the agency did not have any crash data on low 
speed vehicles, and because, with the exception of their speed 
capability, golf cars and LSVs are similar in design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 63 FR 33206. The deaths and injuries were estimated for the 
years 1993 through 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the time of the final rule, NHTSA anticipated that sales of LSVs 
would grow, and, as a result, deaths and serious injuries resulting 
from crashes involving LSVs would occur. As noted above, the agency 
does not have any information on the number of deaths and fatalities 
from crashes involving LSVs since 1998. The agency requests comment on 
this issue.
    NHTSA observed in the final rule that it does not have the 
authority to prescribe the conditions under which LSVs are operated on 
the public roads; this is the prerogative of State and local 
jurisdictions. As noted in the GM petition, the State ZEV mandates that 
have been enacted since the final rule was published probably will 
substantially increase the sales of LSVs. The agency's review of State 
laws also indicates that, since the final rule was published, fifteen 
additional States have enacted laws allowing operation of LSVs on 
public roads.\13\ Those States, the roads on which operation of LSVs is 
permitted, and the required safety equipment, are listed in the table 
below. Thirteen of the States specifically allow operation of LSVs on 
public roads with a posted speed limit of 35 mph or less. One State 
permits operation of LSVs on public roads with a posted speed limit of 
40 mph or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ As noted above, the twelve states that permitted operation 
of LSVs on public roads at the time the final rule was published 
were Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, 
Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and Wyoming. The fifteen 
states that have enacted laws permitting operation of LSVs on public 
roads since the final rule was published are Arkansas, Connecticut, 
Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, 
North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, and 
Wisconsin.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Roads on which
            State                 operation is         Required safety
                                    permitted             equipment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona.....................  Roadways with posted  Headlamps, tail
                               speed limit of 35     lamps, reflectors,
                               mph or less.          stop lamps, mirror,
                                                     brakes, and a
                                                     notice of
                                                     operational
                                                     restrictions
                                                     permanently
                                                     attached to or
                                                     painted on the
                                                     vehicle in a
                                                     location in clear
                                                     view of the driver.
Arkansas....................  Private and public    None.
                               roadways designated
                               by local government
                               to travel to and
                               from a residence to
                               a golf course.
California..................  Roadways with posted  Must conform to
                               speed limit of 35     FMVSS No. 500.
                               mph or less, unless   Local government
                               State or local        may require
                               authorities impose    additional safety
                               restrictions.         devices.
Colorado....................  Private and public    Headlamps, tail
                               roadways designated   lamps, reflectors,
                               by local government.  stop lamps, mirror,
                                                     brakes, and
                                                     triangular slow-
                                                     moving vehicle
                                                     emblem.
Connecticut.................  Private and public    Local government may
                               roadways (not         require safety
                               highways)             devices.
                               designated by local
                               government.
Florida.....................  Roadways with posted  Headlamps, stop
                               speed limit of 35     lamps, turn signal
                               mph or less.          lamps, tail lamps,
                                                     reflex reflectors,
                                                     parking brakes,
                                                     rearview mirrors,
                                                     windshields, seat
                                                     belts, and VIN.
Georgia.....................  Private and public    Must comply with
                               roadways designated   motor vehicle
                               by local government.  equipment
                                                     requirements.
Hawaii......................  Roadways with posted  Must display
                               speed limit of 35     triangular slow
                               mph or less.          moving vehicle
                                                     emblem and a notice
                                                     of the vehicle's
                                                     operational
                                                     restrictions, and
                                                     conform to FMVSS
                                                     No. 500.

[[Page 46153]]

 
Illinois....................  Roadways designated   Steering apparatus,
                               by local government.  rearview mirror,
                                                     front and rear red
                                                     reflectorized
                                                     warning devices,
                                                     slow moving vehicle
                                                     emblem, headlight,
                                                     brake lights, and
                                                     turn signals.
Iowa........................  Roadways with posted  Must conform to
                               speed limit of 35     FMVSS No. 500.
                               mph or less.
Kansas......................  Roadways with posted  Must conform to
                               speed limit of 40     FMVSS No. 500.
                               mph or less.
Maine.......................  Roadways with posted  Must conform to
                               speed limit of 35     FMVSS No. 500.
                               mph or less.
Maryland....................  In Allegany County    None.
                               only, to cross
                               highways for
                               continued access to
                               any portion of a
                               golf course.
Michigan....................  Roadways with posted  Headlamps, front and
                               speed limit of 35     rear turn signal
                               mph or less.          lamps, tail lamps,
                                                     stop lamps, reflex
                                                     reflectors,
                                                     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, parking
                                                     brake, windshield,
                                                     VIN, and seat belt
                                                     assemblies at each
                                                     designated seating
                                                     position.
Minnesota...................  Roads designated by   Slow moving vehicle
                               local government.     emblem and a rear
                                                     view mirror.
Nevada......................  Roadways with posted  Headlamps, tail
                               speed limit of 35     lamps, reflectors,
                               mph or less.          stop lamps, mirror,
                                                     and brakes.
New Mexico..................  Private and public    A slow moving
                               roadways designated   vehicle emblem or
                               by local              flashing yellow
                               government. Carts     light.
                               may not be operated
                               on state highways.
New York....................  Public highways with  Must conform to
                               posted speed limit    FMVSS No. 500.
                               of 35 mph or less.
North Carolina..............  Roadways with posted  Headlamps, stop
                               speed limit of 35     lamps, turn signal
                               mph or less.          lamps, tail lamps,
                                                     reflex reflectors,
                                                     parking brakes,
                                                     rearview mirrors,
                                                     windshields,
                                                     windshield wipers,
                                                     speedometer, seat
                                                     belts, and VIN.
North Dakota................  Roadways with posted  Headlamps, front and
                               speed limit of 35     rear turn signal
                               mph or less.          lamps, tail lamps,
                                                     stop lamps, reflex
                                                     reflectors, one red
                                                     reflector on the
                                                     rear, brakes,
                                                     parking brake,
                                                     windshield, VIN,
                                                     safety belt
                                                     installed at each
                                                     designated seating
                                                     position, exterior
                                                     mirror mounted on
                                                     the operator's side
                                                     of the vehicle, and
                                                     either an exterior
                                                     mirror mounted on
                                                     the passenger's
                                                     side of the vehicle
                                                     or an interior
                                                     rearview mirror.
Oklahoma....................  Roadways with posted  Must conform to
                               speed limit of 35     FMVSS No. 500.
                               mph or less.
Oregon......................  Roadways with posted  None.
                               speed limit of 35
                               mph or less, but
                               local governments
                               may allow operation
                               on city streets or
                               county roads with
                               posted speed limit
                               of more than 35 mph.
South Carolina..............  Secondary highways    None.
                               and streets within
                               2 miles of
                               residence during
                               daylight hours.
Texas.......................  Private and public    Slow-moving vehicle
                               roadways designated   emblem.
                               by local government.
Virginia....................  Roadway between       Slow-moving vehicle
                               residence and golf    emblem.
                               course if the trip
                               would not be longer
                               than one-half mile
                               in either
                               direction, and the
                               speed limit on the
                               road is no more
                               than 35 mph.
Wisconsin...................  On public roadways    Local government may
                               designated by local   require reflective
                               government to and     devices.
                               from a golf course
                               if the distance is
                               one mile or less.
Wyoming.....................  Public streets and    Local government may
                               roadways designated   require safety
                               by local government.  devices.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In promulgating the final rule establishing Standard No. 500, NHTSA 
encouraged the States to limit the operation of LSVs to controlled 
environments, such as gated communities, or, if the States permitted 
the operation of LSVs on public roads with conventional vehicles, would 
require LSVs to be operated only in separate, designated lanes. The 
agency stated:

    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 [does] not eliminate the safety 
risks.

(63 FR 33208). The agency then described the operating environment in 
the City of Palm Desert (California) and urged state and local 
officials to adopt similar requirements:

    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.
* * * * *
    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.

(63 FR 33208).
    Based on the above table, the agency notes that the States have not 
adopted requirements limiting the operation of LSVs to controlled 
environments. On the contrary, the States seem to be expanding the 
environment in which they are permitting the operation of LSVs. For 
example, at the time of the 1998 final rule, California, Iowa, and 
Nevada permitted LSVs to be operated only on public and private 
roadways designated by local government. However, in 1999, California 
enacted a law permitting LSVs to be operated on

[[Page 46154]]

any road with a posted speed limit of 35 mph or less, unless State or 
local authorities impose restrictions; and in 1999 and 2000, Nevada and 
Iowa, respectively, enacted laws permitting LSVs to be operated on any 
road with a posted speed limit of 35 mph or less. In 1998, Florida 
permitted LSVs to be operated only on private and public roadways 
designated by local governments and in self-contained retirement 
communities. Currently, however, Florida permits LSVs to be operated on 
streets where the posted speed limit is 35 mph or less.
    Moreover, many States permit LSVs to cross roadways with a posted 
speed limit greater than 35 mph. For example, Arizona, California, 
Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, 
North Dakota, and Oklahoma permit LSVs to cross roadways with a posted 
speed limit in excess of 35 mph. Kansas permits LSVs to cross roadways 
with a posted speed limit in excess of 40 mph.
    As noted in the 1998 final rule, the operation of LSVs in an 
environment with heavier, faster moving vehicles raises obvious safety 
concerns. Because LSVs are much lighter than conventional vehicles and 
are not subject to the same Federal motor vehicle safety standards, 
they are less crashworthy than conventional vehicles. Thus, LSV 
drivers, especially those unused to the limited acceleration 
capabilities of LSVs, and passengers will be exposed to a greater risk 
of injury or death when operating an LSV on roadways with a posted 
speed limit of 35 mph, or when attempting to cross a roadway with a 
posted speed limit greater than 35 mph.
    Accordingly, the agency anticipates that the increase in the number 
of States that permit LSVs to operate in mixed vehicular traffic on 
roadways with a posted speed limit of 35-40 mph or less, and that 
permit LSVs to cross roadways with a posted speed limit greater than 
35-40 mph, may result in more crashes involving LSVs and conventional 
vehicles.
    As noted above, the agency does not have any data on the number of 
crashes involving LSVs and conventional vehicles. However, the agency 
notes that LSVs typically weigh from 1,100 to 1,400 pounds, while 
conventional light vehicles can weigh anywhere from 2,000 to 10,000 
pounds. Thus, in a crash between an LSV and a conventional vehicle, the 
driver of the LSV would be exposed to a greater risk of injury or 
death.

IV. Agency Proposal

A. Summary of the Proposal

    In the final rule establishing Standard No. 500, the agency noted 
that LSVs must be able to avoid crashes. The agency stated:

    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.

(63 FR 33208).
    Thus, NHTSA determined that the key to minimizing crashes between 
LSVs and conventional vehicles was enhanced conspicuity of LSVs. The 
agency described several suggestions to enhance the conspicuity of LSVs 
made by commenters on the NPRM. One commenter suggested that the agency 
require LSVs to be equipped with a high-intensity flashing yellow lamp 
on the rear or top of the LSV. Another recommended that a 
retroreflective orange triangle be applied to the front and rear of 
LSVs. However, because the agency hoped that the States would permit 
the operation of LSVs only in controlled environments,\14\ it limited 
the conspicuity requirements in Standard No. 500 to tail lamps and red 
reflex reflectors (one on each side and one on the rear of the 
vehicle).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ In the final rule, NHTSA stated, ``The driving environment 
should be appropriate to the vehicle and its characteristics.'' 63 
FR 33208 (June 17, 1998). The agency also urged States to adopt 
features limiting the use of LSVs to controlled environments or to 
separate, marked traffic lanes. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency also believed that drivers of LSVs should be aware of 
the risks associated with operating an LSV in mixed traffic. The agency 
stated:

    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.

(63 FR 33208). However, NHTSA did not require LSVs to be equipped with 
a warning label because the agency hoped that the States would limit 
the operation of LSVs to controlled environments.
    Since the States are permitting more widespread operation of LSVs 
than NHTSA originally hoped, the agency now believes that a warning 
label and additional conspicuity requirements may be necessary. 
Accordingly, the agency is proposing to amend Standard No. 500 to 
require LSVs to be equipped with a warning label and the following 
additional conspicuity features: either additional reflex reflectors on 
the sides and rear of the vehicle, as required for passenger cars by 
Standard No. 108, ``Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated 
Equipment,'' or retroreflective conspicuity sheeting on the sides and 
rear of the vehicle, as required by S5.7.1.4.1(a) and S5.7.1.4.2 of 
Standard No. 108; a slow moving vehicle emblem; and headlamps, 
taillamps, and side marker lamps that are illuminated while the LSV is 
being operated.

B. Warning Label

    LSVs would have to be equipped with a warning label that reads as 
follows:

[[Page 46155]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12JY02.005

    The warning label would have to be permanently affixed in a 
location that is inside the vehicle and is clearly visible from the 
driver's seating position. The text area of the label would be no less 
than 175 cm\2\ (27 in\2\). The header and footer areas would be yellow 
with black text, and the message area would be white with black text. 
The font of the text in the header and footer areas would be not less 
than 6.25 mm (\1/4\ inch) high, the font of the text in the center of 
the message area not less than 5 mm (\3/16\ inch) high, and the font of 
the text at the sides of the message area not less than 3 mm (\1/8\ 
inch) high.
    The agency notes that the use of yellow with the word ``warning'' 
would disagree with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 
standards. ANSI standards specify that when the word ``warning'' is 
used in the heading, the background color should be orange. However, in 
issuing a 1996 final rule requiring new warning labels for vehicles 
with air bags,\15\ the agency conducted several focus groups to 
evaluate different warning labels. The agency stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 61 FR 60206 (November 27, 1996), Docket No. 74-14, Notice 
103.

    Yellow was the overwhelming color preference of the participants 
in the focus groups. Only two of the 53 participants preferred 
orange. Participants generally stated that yellow was more eye-
catching than orange. Participants also noted that red (stop) and 
yellow (caution) had meaning to them, but not orange.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 61 FR 60211 (November 27, 1996).

    The agency also notes that several States require LSVs to be 
equipped with a notice conveying the operational restrictions of LSVs 
or the potential risks of driving LSVs to the driver. For example, 
Arizona and Hawaii require LSVs to have a notice of the operational 
restrictions applying to the vehicle permanently attached to or painted 
on the vehicle in a location that is in clear view of the driver.
    NHTSA realizes that in these States, the warning label proposed in 
this document might partially duplicate the State-required notices. 
However, the agency believes that the proposed warning label would 
complement the State-required notices to inform LSV drivers both of the 
operational limitations of LSVs and the risks associated with driving 
LSVs in mixed traffic. To facilitate compliance with both the Federal 
and State warning label requirements, NHTSA is proposing to allow the 
proposed warning label to be combined with similar State-required 
labels. The agency requests comments from State agencies on these 
issues.

C. Reflex Reflectors or Retroreflective Sheeting

    LSVs would have to be equipped with either reflex reflectors or 
retroreflective sheeting. If the LSV is equipped with reflex 
reflectors, the reflex reflectors would have to comply with Table III 
and Table IV of Standard No. 108 for passenger cars, multipurpose 
passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. This would require LSVs to be 
equipped with four red and two amber reflex reflectors. The reflex 
reflectors would have to be mounted at a height above the road surface 
of not less than 15 inches, nor more than 60 inches, and be located as 
follows: two red reflectors on the rear of the LSV, one on each side of 
the vertical centerline, at the same height, and as far apart as 
practicable; one red reflector on each side of the LSV, as far to the 
rear as practicable; and one amber on each side of the LSV, as far to 
the front as practicable.
    If the LSV is equipped with retroreflective sheeting, the 
retroreflective sheeting would have to comply with the requirements of

[[Page 46156]]

S5.7.1.1 through S5.7.1.3 of Standard No. 108. This would require the 
retroreflective sheeting to consist of a smooth, flat, transparent 
exterior film with retroreflective elements embedded or suspended 
beneath the film so as to form a non-exposed retroreflective optical 
system. This also would require the retroreflective sheeting to have a 
width of at least 50 mm and be applied in a pattern of alternating 
white and red color segments.
    The retroreflective sheeting would have to be applied to the sides 
of LSVs as specified in S5.7.1.4.2 of Standard No. 108 for the side of 
trailers. This would require a strip of retroreflective sheeting, as 
horizontal as practicable, to be applied to each side of the LSV. The 
strip would have to originate and terminate as close as possible to the 
front and rear of the LSV as practicable. The strip would not have to 
be continuous as long as not less than half the length of the LSV was 
covered, and the spaces were distributed as evenly as possible.
    The retroreflective sheeting also would have to be applied to the 
rear of LSVs as specified in S5.7.1.4.1(a) of Standard No. 108 for the 
rear of trailers. This would require a strip of retroreflective 
sheeting, as horizontal as practicable, to be applied across the full 
width of the rear of the LSV. The strip would have to originate and 
terminate as close to the extreme edges of the LSV as practicable. The 
strip would have to be located as close as practicable to not less than 
375 mm and not more than 1565 mm above the road surface.
    Following are drawings of an LSV with reflex reflectors and of an 
LSV with retroreflective sheeting.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12JY02.006

    NHTSA believes that the proposed requirements, if adopted, would 
significantly enhance the visibility of LSVs, from both the side and 
rear views, at night.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The agency is proposing to adopt both requirements, but 
manufacturers would only have to comply with one or the other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency notes that consumers may have an adverse reaction to 
retroreflective sheeting on the side of LSVs. However, the strip of 
retroreflective sheeting would have to cover only the rear of the 
vehicle and half the length of the vehicle. In addition, the agency is 
proposing to allow LSV manufacturers to use reflex reflectors instead 
of retroreflective sheeting. These reflectors might be more 
aesthetically pleasing than sheeting to drivers. Comments are invited 
on this issue.

[[Page 46157]]

D. Slow Moving Vehicle Emblem

    LSVs also would have to be equipped with a slow moving vehicle 
emblem on the rear of the LSV. The slow moving vehicle emblem would 
have to comply with the emblem maintained by the American Society of 
Agricultural Engineers (ANSI/ASAE S276.5 MAY98, Slow-Moving Vehicle 
Identification Emblem), and would have to be mounted in accordance with 
ASAE requirements.
    Following is a picture of the slow moving vehicle emblem with its 
dimensions.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12JY02.007

    The ASAE slow moving vehicle emblem is a fluorescent orange, 
equilateral triangle with a red retroreflective border. The ASAE 
standard specifies that the emblem is mounted with the point of the 
triangle upward in a plane perpendicular to the direction of travel and 
 20 degrees from the vertical. The emblem is displayed as 
near to the rear and centered, or as near to the left of center of the 
vehicle or equipment, as practical. It is located 0.6 to 3 meters (2 to 
10 feet) above the ground measured from the lower edge of the emblem. 
The emblem is ``securely and rigidly affixed to the equipment.''
    NHTSA notes that several States, including Colorado, Hawaii, 
Illinois, Minnesota, New Mexico, Texas, and Virginia, currently require 
LSVs to be equipped with a slow moving vehicle emblem. However, most of 
these States require the emblem to conform to the ASAE standard as to 
specifications and mounting. The slow moving vehicle emblem proposed in 
this document would be consistent with those States' requirements.
    Some States require that the emblem conform to different 
specifications. For example, Hawaii requires the emblem to be mounted 
at a height of 3 to 5 feet above the ground, and New Mexico requires 
the emblem to be mounted at a height of 2 to 5 feet above the ground. 
NHTSA notes that the ASAE height specification (2 to 10 feet above the 
ground) the agency is proposing to require would mesh with these State 
requirements. However, the agency invites comment on this issue.

E. Side Marker Lamps

    LSVs also would have to be equipped with side marker lamps as 
specified in Table III and Table IV of Standard No. 108 for passenger 
cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. This would 
require LSVs to be equipped with 2 red and 2 amber side marker lamps. 
The side marker lamps would have to be mounted at a height above the 
road surface of not less than 15 inches, and be located as follows: one 
red on each side of the LSV, as far to the rear as practicable; and one 
amber on each side of the LSV, as far to the front as practicable.
    The agency believes that the addition of side marker lamps would 
significantly enhance the visibility of LSVs, from the side view, at 
night.

F. Headlamps, Taillamps, and Side Marker Lamps Illuminated While LSV Is 
Being Operated

    An LSV's headlamps, taillamps, and side marker lamps also would 
have to be illuminated at all times while the LSV is being operated. 
Thus, when an LSV's ignition is activated, or the switch or device that 
provides power from the propulsion batteries to the propulsion motor(s) 
is in the activated or the ready-to-drive position, its headlamps, 
taillamps, and side marker lamps would have to illuminate automatically 
and remain illuminated.
    The agency believes that requiring LSV headlamps, taillamps, and 
side marker lamps to be illuminated while the LSV is being operated 
would significantly enhance the conspicuity of LSVs from the front and 
rear during the daytime and twilight hours. While the agency has no 
data on the effectiveness of requiring headlamps, taillamps, and side 
marker lamps to be illuminated during vehicle operation, a June 2000 
NHTSA report on the effectiveness of daytime running lamps (DRLs) 
indicated that passenger cars with DRLs were involved in 7 percent 
fewer non-fatal, two-vehicle crashes, and 28 percent fewer pedestrian 
fatalities.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ ``A Preliminary Assessment of the Crash-Reduciing 
Effectiveness of Passenger Car Daytime Runninig Lamps (DRLs),'' 
NHTSA, June 2000, DOT HS 808 645. A copy of this report has been 
placed in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency also notes that many LSVs operate on battery power, and 
that the

[[Page 46158]]

maximum range of current battery-powered LSVs is limited to about 30 
miles on a full battery charge. Requiring LSVs to have their headlamps, 
taillamps, and side marker lamps illuminated at all times while the LSV 
is being operated would have some impact on the battery power. However, 
the agency is uncertain of the extent of that impact. The agency also 
notes that reducing the maximum range of battery-powered LSVs could be 
considered a safety issue if an LSV runs out of power while being 
operated on a public roadway.
    NHTSA requests comment on the impact of this proposed requirement 
on the conspicuity of LSVs, the maximum range of battery-powered LSVs, 
and the safety consequences of reduced battery power.

G. Notifying State Agencies and Monitoring LSV Usage

    Finally, GM requested that the agency: (1) notify State agencies of 
the potential risks associated with the increased operation of LSVs on 
public roads and encourage those State agencies to consider appropriate 
measures to reduce the potential for harm; and (2) monitor any 
increased usage of LSVs on public roads for the incidence of collisions 
and resulting injuries to determine if stronger measures should be 
incorporated in Standard No. 500.
    NHTSA believes these recommendations have merit. With so many 
States permitting LSVs to be operated on public roads, we agree that it 
would be worthwhile for the agency to emphasize its concerns to those 
State agencies about the risks associated with the operation of LSVs on 
public roads. As to monitoring LSV usage on public roads and fatalities 
and injuries as a result of crashes involving LSVs, we will consult 
with the state agencies on this matter.
    As such, the agency believes that States should consider monitoring 
LSV usage on public roads and fatalities and injuries that result from 
crashes involving LSVs. The agency invites comment on how that 
monitoring should be done, both on a State and a national level, 
consistently and effectively. The agency also invites comment on the 
best way to consult with the States on this issue.

H. Questions on This Proposal

    The agency requests answers to the following questions on the 
additional conspicuity requirements and warning label proposed in this 
document. Specifically:
    1. Would these conspicuity features be appropriate and effective 
during the day? At night?
    2. Should the agency require conspicuity features in addition to 
those being proposed?
    3. What would the cost be of the proposed features? Of any 
additional features?
    4. How can the agency increase conspicuity while maintaining 
consumer acceptance?
    5. Should additional language or issues (e.g., state of battery 
charge, rollover propensity, etc.) be included in the warning label?
    6. Where should the label be located on the LSV? Should the agency 
specify that the label must be visible to a normally seated driver 
using the occupant restraints? Should it specify that the location of 
the label in relation to the H-point of the driver's seat, as the 
agency has done with respect to the location of the telltale for the 
air bag on-off switch?
    7. What color(s) should the label be?
    8. What size should the label be? What size should the font be?
    9. Should the label be required to be permanent?
    10. What would the cost be of adding this warning label?
    11. What steps can the agency take to mesh its proposed warning 
label and slow moving vehicle emblem with existing State requirements 
for warning labels and slow moving vehicle emblems?
    12. What steps should the agency and States take to address the 
risks associated with the operation of LSVs in mixed traffic and to 
monitor crashes involving LSVs?
    13. How would the proposed requirement that LSVs have their 
headlamps, taillamps, and side marker lamps illuminated at all times 
while the LSV is being operated impact LSVs that operate on battery 
power?
    Please be as specific as possible in your answers to these 
questions and provide supporting data.

I. Lead Time

    NHTSA is proposing to require these additional features, except for 
the side marker lamps, for LSVs manufactured on or after September 1, 
2002 for the following reasons.
    The ZEV mandate discussed above will take effect in California 
September 1, 2002. Thus, the agency anticipates that a high volume of 
LSVs could be sold and operating on the public roads later this year. 
The agency believes the safety of the drivers of these LSVs would be 
enhanced by requiring these LSVs to be equipped with the conspicuity 
features proposed in this document.
    The agency also believes that LSV manufacturers and/or dealers 
would need little time to procure and install most of the items the 
agency is proposing to require because they are readily available and 
easily installed.\19\ Retroreflective sheeting may be installed with 
adhesive backings. Reflex reflectors also may be installed with 
adhesive backings or with self-drilling-tapping screws or by pop-
rivets. The slow-moving vehicle emblem is almost always installed on a 
completed vehicle using brackets provided by the vehicle manufacturer 
or by the emblem manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The agency notes that some vehicles may be at dealerships, 
but believes that these additional items would easily be installable 
by dealers because they are simple add-on devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency notes that while the warning label is not readily 
available, it should not be difficult for LSV manufacturers and dealers 
to procure such a label when the content of the warning is already 
known. Warning labels also are easily installed. They typically have an 
adhesive backing and can be added as the LSV is assembled or some time 
after.
    NHTSA also notes that the lights-on requirement would necessitate 
an additional relay that can be added after the LSV is assembled, by 
either the manufacturer or dealer. Instructions from the LSV 
manufacturer would simplify this process, especially if the 
manufacturer were to make available to LSV dealers a kit that would 
suffice until all LSVs were manufacturer with a standard lights-on 
feature.
    The agency is proposing to require side marker lamps be installed 
on LSVs manufactured on or after September 1, 2003. The agency is 
proposing an additional year of lead time for this feature because the 
installation of side marker lamps requires a wiring harness change and 
possibly a higher current capable lighting switch/relay. Thus, the 
agency believes an extra year of lead time is appropriate for this 
feature.

V. Costs

    NHTSA estimates that the cost of equipping an LSV with the proposed 
warning label would be from $0.08 to $0.13 per vehicle.\20\ The agency 
notes that a small number of manufacturers already equip some LSVs with 
a label warning of the vehicle's operational restrictions. These labels 
may need to be redesigned, which would cost less than providing a new 
label. However, given the small number of LSVs that are currently 
equipped with such a label,

[[Page 46159]]

the agency believes that this difference in cost will not affect the 
$0.08 to $0.13 per vehicle estimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ All cost estimates are in 2001 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA estimates that the cost of equipping an LSV with the proposed 
slow moving vehicle emblem, including installation and overhead costs, 
would be $7.00 per vehicle.
    NHTSA is proposing to require LSV manufacturers to equip LSVs with 
either three additional reflex reflectors (an additional one on each 
side and the rear of the vehicle) or retroreflective sheeting on the 
sides and rear of the vehicle. The retail cost of reflex reflectors is 
about $1.00. Thus, if LSV manufacturers choose to comply by equipping 
LSVs with additional reflex reflectors, the agency estimates that the 
cost, including installation and overhead costs, would be $3.00 per 
vehicle.
    The average current price of 50 mm-wide retroreflective sheeting is 
$2.54 per meter. The average LSV is about 3 meters long and 1.42 meters 
wide. However, the agency is proposing to require that the 
retroreflective sheeting cover only half of the length of the sides of 
LSVs. Thus, the average LSV would require 4.42 meters of 50 mm-wide 
retroreflective sheeting, at a cost of $11.23. The agency estimates 
that the labor cost would be $3.30 per vehicle.
    The agency notes that in a 1992 NHTSA rulemaking to require that 
trailers with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds 
be equipped with either retroreflective sheeting or reflectors,\21\ 
trailer manufacturers commented that their cost estimate was 54 percent 
higher than NHTSA's cost estimate. To account for the possibility that 
trailer manufacturers might experience costs higher than the agency's 
estimate, NHTSA increased its cost estimate by half the difference 
between the agency's estimate and the trailer manufacturer's estimate, 
or 27 percent. To be consistent, the agency is increasing its cost 
estimate for the current rulemaking by 27 percent as well. Thus, if LSV 
manufacturers choose to comply by equipping LSVs with retroreflective 
sheeting, the agency estimates that the cost would be $18.46 per 
vehicle [($11.23 + $3.30) * 1.27].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ NHTSA issued the final rule on December 10, 1992 (57 FR 
58406, Docket No. 80-9, Notice 6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency estimates that the cost of equipping an LSV with side 
marker lamps would be $28.30 per vehicle.
    The agency has been unable to estimate the cost of requiring LSVs 
to have their headlamps, taillamps, and side marker lamps illuminated 
while the LSV is being operated. The agency notes that many LSVs 
operate on batteries, and requiring LSVs to have their headlamps, 
taillamps, and side marker lamps illuminated at all times while the LSV 
is being operated would have some impact on the battery power. However, 
the agency has not been able to quantify that impact or the cost of 
that impact. The agency invites comment on this issue.
    Based on the cost estimates above, the total cost of this proposal 
would be from $38.38 to $53.89 per vehicle, depending on whether LSV 
manufacturers choose to comply with reflex reflectors or 
retroreflective sheeting.

VI. Benefits

    NHTSA has not attempted to quantify the safety benefits of these 
proposals. The agency invites comment on this issue.

VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices:

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' 
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    This rulemaking document was not reviewed under Executive Order 
12866. It is not significant within the meaning of the DOT's Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures. This regulatory action would require 
additional conspicuity features and a warning label on LSVs. If this 
proposal is adopted, the agency estimates that the cost of these 
additions would be from $38.38 to $53.89 per vehicle, depending on 
whether LSV manufacturers choose to comply with reflex reflectors or 
retroreflective sheeting. The agency does not know how many LSVs are 
manufactured each year. However, according to its petition, GM believes 
that the volume of LSVs could grow to 50,000 units per year by the end 
of 2002. Using the 50,000 figure, the total cost of this rulemaking 
would be from $1.9 million to $2.7 million.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice 
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). 
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.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No 
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency 
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of 
the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    NHTSA has considered the effect of this proposed rule under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. As noted above, this proposed rule would 
require additional conspicuity features and a warning label on LSVs. 
The agency does not believe that there are a significant number of 
small businesses that manufacture LSVs in the U.S. market. The agency 
knows of six LSV manufacturers. Three of them are aligned with large 
companies, and one is a foreign manufacturer, leaving only 2 small LSV 
manufacturers in the U.S.
    Based on this analysis, I certify that this proposed rule would not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

C. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that 
implementation of this proposed rule would not have any significant 
impact on the quality of the human environment.

[[Page 46160]]

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable 
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local 
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have 
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue a 
regulation with Federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, the agency 
consults with State and local governments, or the agency consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. NHTSA also may not issue a regulation with 
Federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the agency 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    The agency has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the 
principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132 and has 
determined that it would have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation 
of a federalism summary impact statement. If adopted, the proposal 
would preempt State laws requiring slow moving vehicle emblems, other 
than the emblem specified by the ASAE, to be mounted on LSVs in 
accordance with requirements different from those specified by the 
ASAE. The proposal would also impact state requirements for warning 
labels on LSVs. Accordingly, the agency contacted the AAMVA, and 
officials from Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Missouri, New Jersey, New 
York, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, and Virginia prior to issuing this proposed 
rule.

E. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed amendment would not have any retroactive effect. 
Under 49 U.S.C. 33118, whenever a Federal motor vehicle theft 
prevention standard is in effect, a State or political subdivision of a 
State may not adopt or maintain a different theft prevention standard 
for a motor vehicle or replacement part. 49 U.S.C. 32909 sets forth a 
procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending, or 
revoking Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standards. That section 
does not require submission of a petition for reconsideration or other 
administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless 
the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This proposed rule 
does not have any requirements that would be considered information 
collection requirements as defined by OMB in 5 CFR part 1320.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272) directs NHTSA to use voluntary consensus 
standards in regulatory activities unless doing so would be 
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business 
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). 
The NTTAA directs NHTSA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations 
when the agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary 
consensus standards.
    The agency is proposing to use the following standard from the 
American Society of Agricultural Engineers: ANSI/ASAE S276.5 MAY98, 
Slow-Moving Vehicle Identification Emblem.
    The agency also notes that, in March 2002, the Society of 
Automotive Engineers (SAE) adopted a standard on LSVs.\22\ The SAE 
standard specifies that reflex reflectors are to be mounted at a height 
above the road surface of not less than 15 inches nor more than 60 
inches, and be located as follows: Two yellow, mounted (one on each 
side) as far forward as practicable; two red, mounted (one on each 
side) as far rearward as practicable; and two red, mounted on the rear, 
as far from the vehicle centerline as practicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ ``Low Speed Vehicles,'' Document No. J2358, March 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA is proposing to require that the reflex reflectors be mounted 
at a height above the road surface of not less than 15 inches and not 
more than 60 inches, and be located as follows: Two amber, mounted (one 
on each side) as far forward as practicable; two red, mounted (one on 
each side) as far rearward as practicable; and two red mounted on the 
rear, one on each side of the vertical centerline, at the same height, 
and as far apart as practicable.
    Thus, NHTSA's proposal differs from the SAE standard in one minor 
way: The SAE standard specifies a different color (yellow) than the 
agency's proposal (amber) for the two reflectors mounted on the side of 
the LSV as far forward as practicable. NHTSA is not proposing to adopt 
yellow as the color for these reflectors for the following reasons. 
First, the agency wants these LSV requirements to be consistent with 
the requirements for other light vehicles. Standard No. 108 requires 
reflex reflectors for other light vehicles to be amber (or red), not 
yellow. Second, Standard No. 108 refers to SAE standard J594f (January 
1977) for the color of reflex reflectors. That SAE standard refers to 
SAE standard J578, ``Color Specifications for Electric Signal Lighting 
Devices,'' which uses ``amber'' and ``yellow'' interchangeably. 
Finally, the SAE standard for LSVs does not define ``yellow.''
    The SAE standard also contains optional specifications for side 
marker lamps. If side marker lamps are provided, the SAE standard 
specifies that they are to be mounted at a height above the road 
surface of not less than 15 inches and not more than 60 inches, and be 
located as follows: One yellow on each side of the LSV, as far forward 
as practicable; and one red on each side of the LSV, as far rearward as 
practicable.
    NHTSA is proposing to require that side marker lamps be mounted at 
a height above the road surface of not less than 15 inches, and be 
located as follows: One amber on each side of the LSV, as far forward 
as practicable; and one red on each side of the LSV, as far rearward as 
practicable.
    Thus, the agency's proposal differs from the SAE standard in two 
minor ways: The SAE standard contains a maximum height specification 
(60 inches above the road surface), and the agency's proposal does not; 
and the SAE standard specifies a different color (yellow) for the side 
marker lamps located as far forward as practicable than the agency's 
proposal (amber). NHTSA is not proposing a maximum height specification 
for side marker lamps because it is unnecessary. Reflex reflectors are 
required to be mounted between 15 and 60 inches above the road surface 
because they reflect light

[[Page 46161]]

from other vehicles' headlamps. If they were more than 60 inches above 
the road, they would not reflect light effectively, and thus would not 
be easily seen. However, side marker lamps emit light. Thus, they do 
not have to be below a certain height in order to be seen. NHTSA is not 
proposing to adopt yellow as the color for these side marker lamps for 
the same reasons the agency is not proposing to adopt yellow as the 
color for reflex reflectors.
    Finally, the SAE standard specifies that LSVs be equipped with 
several safety warnings/signs. The SAE standard specifies that safety 
signs be permanently affixed to the vehicle, be visible to the 
operator, and convey the following information:
    To avoid the risk of severe personal injury or death:
    a. Only operate at maximum speed when on smooth, flat, non-
congested roadways or paved pathways.
    b. Do not operate the vehicle until all occupants are seated and 
seat belts are fastened (if so equipped).
    c. Drive slowly in turns and when descending grades.
    d. Set parking brake before leaving vehicle.
    e. Place vehicle control in ``Neutral/Park'', if so equipped, and 
remove the ignition key when not in use.
    f. Do not operate under the influence of alcohol or other drugs.
    NHTSA is proposing to require that the warning label be permanently 
affixed in a location that is inside the vehicle and is clearly visible 
from the driver's seating position. The warning label would have to 
convey the following information:
    a. An LSV has less safety equipment than conventional motor 
vehicles;.
    b. The operator and passengers have a higher risk of crash, serious 
injury, or death when the LSV is operated on roads with conventional 
motor vehicles or on roads where the posted speed limit exceeds 25 mph;
    c. LSV operators and passengers should always wear safety belts.
    The agency believes that the warning label proposed in this 
document addresses the safety problem discussed in this document, i.e., 
the operation of LSVs on roads with conventional motor vehicles and on 
roads where the posted speed limit exceeds the top speed of LSVs. In 
addition, NHTSA is proposing specifications for the size of the font, 
the background colors, and the size of the label itself. The SAE 
standard does not contain such specifications. The agency believes such 
specifications are necessary to ensure that the warning is uniform, 
eye-catching, and is easy to read and understand. Accordingly, the 
agency is not proposing the safety warning specified in the SAE 
standard. However, the agency solicits comments on this and all other 
aspects of the SAE standard. The agency will consider those comments in 
making decisions about a final rule.
    The agency will consider any other relevant voluntary standards 
should they become available.

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more 
than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base 
year of 1995). Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires NHTSA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objective of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows NHTSA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the 
agency publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted.
    If adopted, this proposed rule would not result in the expenditure 
by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector, of more than $100 million annually.

I. Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in 
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language 
includes consideration of the following questions:

--Has the agency organized the material to suit the public's needs?
--Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
--Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
--Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of 
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?

--Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
--Could the agency improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or 
diagrams?
--What else could the agency do to make this rulemaking easier to 
understand?

    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them 
in your comments on this NPRM.

J. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center 
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may 
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document 
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

Comments

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). 
NHTSA established this limit to encourage you to write your primary 
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary 
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length 
of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the 
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under 
ADDRESSES.
    You may also submit your comments to the docket electronically by 
logging onto the Dockets Management System Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to obtain 
instructions for filing the document electronically.

How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of 
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the 
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket 
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential

[[Page 46162]]

business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should 
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential 
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above 
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed 
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover 
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential 
business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

    NHTSA will consider all comments that Docket Management receives 
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated 
above under DATES. To the extent possible, the agency will also 
consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If 
Docket Management receives a comment too late for the agency to 
consider it in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), 
the agency will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for 
future rulemaking action.

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the 
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are 
indicated above in the same location.
    You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments 
on the Internet, take the following steps:
    1. Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the 
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
    2. On that page, click on ``search.''
    3. On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the four-
digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. Example: 
If the docket number were ``NHTSA-1998-1234,'' you would type ``1234.'' 
After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
    4. On the next page, which contains docket summary information for 
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may 
download the comments. Although the comments are imaged documents, 
instead of word processing documents, the ``pdf'' versions of the 
documents are word searchable.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, NHTSA will 
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
the agency recommends that you periodically check the Docket for new 
material.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber products, 
Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA is proposing to amend part 
571 as follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

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

    Authority: 39 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166; delegation 
of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    2. Section 571.500 would be amended by revising paragraph S5(b) 
introductory text, (b)(1), (b)(3), and (b)(5), and adding paragraphs 
S5(b)(11), (b)(12), and (b)(13) to read as follows:


Sec. 571.500  Standard No. 500; Low-speed vehicles.

* * * * *
    S5. Requirements.
* * * * *
    (b) Each low-speed vehicle must be equipped with:
    (1) Headlamps that are illuminated when the ignition is activated, 
or the switch or device that provides power from the propulsion 
batteries to the propulsion motor(s) is in the activated or the ready-
to-drive position,
* * * * *
    (3) Taillamps that are illuminated when the ignition is activated, 
or the switch or device that provides power from the propulsion 
batteries to the propulsion motor(s) is in the activated or the ready-
to-drive position,
* * * * *
    (5)(i) Reflex reflectors as specified in Table III of Standard No. 
108 (49 CFR 571.108) for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger 
vehicles, trucks, and buses, and mounted as specified in Table IV of 
Standard No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108), or
    (ii) Retroreflective sheeting as specified in S5.7.1.1 through 
S5.7.1.3 of Standard No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108), located as specified in 
S5.7.1.4.1(a) of Standard No. 108 for the rear of trailers, and 
S5.7.1.4.2 of Standard No. 108 for the side of trailers,
* * * * *
    (11) An emblem that complies with ANSI/ASAE S276.5 MAY98, Slow-
Moving Vehicle Identification Emblem (American Society of Agricultural 
Engineers, 2950 Niles Rd., St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659, USA ph. 616-429-
0300, fax 616-429-3852, [email protected].) This emblem must be mounted in 
accordance with the requirements therein.
    (12) For LSVs manufactured on or after September 1, 2003, side 
marker lamps as specified in Table III of Standard No. 108 (49 CFR 
571.108) for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, 
and buses, that are:
    (i) Mounted as specified in Table IV of Standard No. 108 (49 CFR 
571.108), and
    (ii) Illuminated when the ignition is activated, or the switch or 
device that provides power from the propulsion batteries to the 
propulsion motor(s) is in the activated or the ready-to-drive position, 
and
    (13) A warning label that meets the following requirements--
    (i) The label must be permanently affixed to a location that is 
inside the vehicle and is clearly visible from the driver's seating 
position.
    (ii) The text area of the label must be not less than 175 
cm2 (27 in2).
    (iii) The header and footer areas must be yellow with black text, 
and the message area must be white with black text.
    (iv) The font of the text in the header and footer areas must be 
not less than 6.25 mm (\1/4\ inch) high; the font of the text in the 
center of the message area must be not less than 5 mm (\3/16\ inch) 
high; and the font of the text at the sides of the message area must be 
not less than 3 mm (\1/8\ inch) high.
    (v) The label may be combined with a similar State-required warning 
label. On combined labels, the text specified in this section must be 
separated from the State-required text by a line.
    (vi) The warning label must read as shown in Figure 1:

[[Page 46163]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12JY02.008

* * * * *

    Issued: July 5, 2002.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 02-17422 Filed 7-11-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P