[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 235 (Monday, December 8, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68319-68324]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-30379]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-03-16601]
RIN 2127-AJ12


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Low Speed Vehicles

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This proposal addresses two petitions for rulemaking regarding 
the exclusion of trucks from the definition of ``low-speed vehicle'' 
(LSV). The proposed definition would expand the LSV class to include 
trucks, but would limit the class to small vehicles. In addition, the 
proposed definition is more complete than the current definition.

DATES: You should submit comments early enough to ensure that Docket 
Management receives them not later than February 6, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by the DOT DMS Docket 
Number] by any of the following methods:

    [sbull] Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for 
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
    [sbull] Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    [sbull] Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590-001.
    [sbull] Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif 
Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 am and 5 
pm, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    [sbull] Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.

    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this 
rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Requests for 
Comments heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this 
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change 
to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information provided. 
Please see the discussion of the Privacy Act under the Comments 
heading.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC, between 9 am and 5 pm, Monday through Friday, except 
Federal Holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues: Gayle Dalrymple, 
Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, NVS-123, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, 
telephone 202-366-5559, facsimile 202-493-2739, e-mail 
[email protected].
    For legal issues: Christopher Calamita, Office of Chief Counsel, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20590, telephone 202-366-2992, facsimile 202-366-
3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Proposed Change to Definition of Low-speed Vehicle
III. Proposed Effective Date
IV. Comments
V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

I. Background

    On June 17, 1998, the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule establishing a new 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 500, ``Low-speed 
vehicles,'' and added a definition of ``low-speed vehicle'' (LSV) to 49 
CFR 571.3 (63 FR 33194). This new FMVSS and vehicle classification 
responded to the growing public interest in using golf cars and other 
similarly sized small vehicles to make short trips for shopping, social 
and recreational purposes primarily within retirement or other planned, 
self-contained communities. These vehicles, many of which are electric-
powered,\1\ offer comparatively low-cost, energy-efficient, low-
emission, quiet transportation. Electric LSVs are also known as 
Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs). The current definition of LSV is 
``a 4-wheeled motor vehicle, other than a truck,\2\ whose speed 
attainable in 1.6 km (1 mile) is more than 32 kilometers per hour (20 
miles per hour) and not more than 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per 
hour) on a paved level surface.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Upon review of LSVs currently manufactured, the agency is 
not aware of an LSV designed with a non-electric power source.
    \2\ A ``truck'' is defined at 49 CFR 571.3(b) as ``a motor 
vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for 
the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the preamble to the notice of proposed rulemaking, in the 
preamble to the final rule, in response to petitions for 
reconsideration of the final rule, and in letters of interpretation of 
the definition of LSV, we made it clear that our vision of an LSV is a 
small, lightweight vehicle that could not meet FMVSSs appropriate for 
larger and heavier vehicles. (The citations for these documents are 
provided later in this preamble.) In the NPRM, we proposed the 
``creation of a new class of vehicle * * * with a definitional 
criterion of speed alone.'' Trucks were not excluded; however, low-
speed vehicles with ``work performing features'' (such as a street 
sweeper) would have been excluded from the equipment requirement of the 
proposed standard. Not excluding trucks from the LSV definition would 
have had the unintended result of rendering some vehicles that already 
met FMVSSs subject to neither those standards nor even the minimum 
requirements applying to LSVs. In the preamble to the final rule, we 
noted:

vehicles with ``work performing equipment'' (i.e., certain trucks) 
would have been LSVs under the proposal, although not required to 
meet Standard No. 500. Under the final rule, these vehicles are no 
longer included and must continue to meet truck FMVSSs. This change 
is consistent with the rationale of this rulemaking, which is to 
eliminate a regulatory conflict involving passenger-carrying 
vehicles. Further, NHTSA concludes that the truck FMVSSs remain 
appropriate for trucks with a speed capability between 20 and 25 
miles per hour and that these standards have not inhibited their 
introduction in the past. (63 FR 33194, 33197.)

    The trucks under discussion in the above paragraph were heavy 
vehicles, such as street sweepers and other slow-moving special task 
vehicles. The

[[Page 68320]]

exclusion of trucks added in the final rule was meant to prevent these 
heavy vehicles, which already complied with the appropriate FMVSS, from 
falling into the new LSV class.
    The purpose of low speed vehicles was represented to us at the 
public meetings prior to the NPRM to establish the LSV class and in 
comments to that notice, as convenient, low-cost, low-emission 
transportation of up to four people within the confines of a planned, 
often gated, community. However, as of July 2002, 17 states allow LSVs 
to operate on public roads with speed limits up to 35 miles per hour 
and one state allows their operation on roads with speed limits of up 
to 40 miles per hour. The laws of 27 states allow LSV operation on 
public roads, while not specifically regulating them, and the laws of 
six states prohibit LSVs on public roads without a specific authorizing 
regulation.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Use of Low-speed Vehicle on Public Roads'; Insurance 
Institute for Highway Safety; July 19, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We continue to urge states to be very careful when contemplating 
the use of these vehicles on public roads. States must remain aware 
that LSVs do not have the occupant protection capability of other motor 
vehicles, that their lightweight makes their occupants very vulnerable 
in any collision with a non-LSV vehicle, and that the force involved in 
that collision increases proportional to the square of the velocity of 
travel. For example, the result of a vehicle collision at 35 mph is 
twice as severe as the same collision at 25 mph. We continue to 
anticipate that LSV use on roads outside confined, controlled areas 
will be limited by the fact that occupants will not want to travel at 
less than 25 miles per hour in mixed-vehicle traffic for other than 
very short trips, regardless of how states may or may not restrict 
their use.
    Since the publication of the final rule, we have received two 
petitions regarding the exclusion of trucks from the definition of LSV. 
The first was a petition for reconsideration of the final rule by 
Solectria (seconded by Electric Transportation Coalition) asking us to 
reconsider the exclusion of trucks from the definition of LSV because 
Solectria manufactures a micro electric pickup truck. Solectria said 
its truck was ``suitable'' for many uses off the public roads, such as 
airport and college properties and in parks. Solectria asked that we 
amend the definition of LSV to exclude only trucks with a curb weight 
greater than 2,200 pounds.
    In our response to Solectria's petition for reconsideration (65 FR 
53219; September 1, 2000), we reiterated the discussion from the 
preamble to the final rule that we believed excluding trucks from 
Standard 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'' and that we believed the 
decision to be ``consistent with the rationale of this rulemaking, 
which is to eliminate a regulatory conflict involving passenger-
carrying vehicles.'' We noted that FMVSSs applicable to trucks with a 
maximum speed between 20 and 25 miles per hour had not inhibited the 
introduction of such trucks in the past. However, we also stated,

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.

    Subsequently, the agency received a petition regarding the LSV 
definition from Global Electric Motorcars (GEM), a DaimlerChrysler 
company, in January of 2002. GEM asked that NHTSA change the definition 
of LSV, ``to include ``trucks'' or vehicles designed primarily for the 
transportation of property or special purpose equipment, so long as 
they meet the existing vehicle speed limitations of the definition.'' 
GEM noted that the NPRM stated ``LSVs would include all motor vehicles, 
other than motorcycles * * *, whose speed * * * does not exceed 25 
mph,'' and that the agency recognized, ``that there is no reasonable 
justification for subjecting low-speed vehicles like golf carts and 
mini-bikes to full range of safety standards that apply to heavier, 
faster vehicles.''
    GEM contends that excluding trucks from the LSV class `` will 
severely limit manufacturers'' ability to fully realize the potential 
benefits of the LSV rule.'' GEM currently produces two- and four-
passenger LSVs with a cargo bin and a two-passenger model with a short 
or long metal cargo bed. It would like to expand its line of LSVs to 
include ``small community ambulances, and fire trucks,'' and believes 
that applying all truck FMVSS's to these proposed NEV trucks,

is completely arbitrary because the vehicles are not materially 
different from their LSV passenger vehicle cousins, and there is no 
evidence that somehow the vehicles are less safe than those 
passenger vehicle cousins. * * * Requiring these vehicles to meet 
the Federal standards for side impact, front impact and air bags 
would require a vehicle design that would be too heavy for its 
intended LSV uses.

    As a result of the petitions received by both GEM and Solectria, 
the agency has decided to reconsider the LSV definition. We tentatively 
agree with the petitioners that the current exclusion of trucks from 
the LSV definition is too broad and does not fully reflect current 
interpretations. Therefore, in this notice, we are proposing to drop 
the exclusion of trucks from the definition, and to limit the LSV class 
in a more complete way.

II. Proposed Change to Definition of Low-Speed Vehicle

    The agency is proposing to amend the definition of low-speed 
vehicle, in response to the two petitions discussed above. If made 
final, the amended definition of LSV would eliminate an overly broad 
restriction on LSVs with cargo carrying capacity and establish a more 
complete definition.
    The current definition of LSV is:

Low-speed vehicle means a 4-wheeled motor vehicle, other than a 
truck, whose speed attainable in 1.6 km (1 mile) is more than 32 
kilometers per hour (20 miles per hour) and not more than 40 
kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) on a paved level surface. 
(49 CFR 517.3(b))

    The agency is proposing the following definition:

Low-speed vehicle means
    (a) a 4-wheeled motor vehicle,
    (b) whose speed attainable in 1.6 km (1 mile) is more than 32 
kilometers per hour (20 miles per hour) and not more than 40 
kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) on a paved level surface,
    (c) whose rated cargo load is at least 36 kilograms (80 pounds), 
and
    (d) whose GVWR is less than 1,134 kilograms (2,500 pounds).

    The amended definition would eliminate the exclusion of ``trucks'' 
from the LSV classification and address the petitioners' claim that no 
logical basis exists to differentiate between passenger and cargo-
carrying low-speed vehicles. At the same time, the proposed definition 
would be more complete and would better communicate the concept that 
NHTSA has always expressed: LSVs are a class of vehicles for which the 
FMVSS for cars, trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles are 
inappropriate because of the small size of the vehicles in this class.

Our Rationale for Proposing that LSVs Have a Maximum GVWR of 2500 
Pounds and a Minimum Rated Cargo Load of 80 Pounds

    The NPRM that proposed to establish the LSV class, initiated 
``rulemaking based upon oral presentations at the agency's public 
meetings and written comments received on the appropriate

[[Page 68321]]

classification and safety regulations for golf cars and other small, 
light-weight vehicles that are capable of being driven on the public 
roads.'' (62 FR 1077, January 8, 1997) In every discussion of LSVs by 
the agency--from the public meetings preceding the 1997 NPRM through 
the 2002 NPRM on LSV conspicuity (67 FR 46149, July 12, 2002) \4\--the 
agency's main reason for excluding these vehicles from compliance with 
other FMVSS was the idea that such compliance was inappropriate for a 
class of ``small, lightweight vehicles.'' On June 28, 2000, NHTSA 
replied to a request for legal interpretation regarding the definition 
of LSV from Thomas Dahl of Lampasas, Texas. Mr. Dahl asked, ``whether 
speed governing devices are allowed by the NHTSA to meet the 
interpretation of low-speed vehicle.'' In its response, the agency 
stated, in part:

The preambles of the rulemaking notices under which the definition 
and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 500, Low-Speed 
Vehicles were adopted, clearly indicate that the purpose of the 
rulemaking was to accommodate a new category of small motor vehicle 
which was making its appearance in retirement communities. * * * 
Because of their small size and light weight, these vehicles could 
not meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards appropriate for 
larger and heavier vehicles, such as requirements to be met in 30 
mph barrier crashes. The common feature of this emerging class of 
motor vehicle appeared to be a maximum speed capability of not more 
than 25 miles per hour as designed and manufactured, and we decided 
upon that as the principal feature of the definition.

    These vehicles needed to be excluded from the FMVSS because of 
their small size. This decision was appropriate because of the 
vehicles' low operating speed and restricted areas of use.
    It has become apparent from the Solectria and GEM petitions, and 
letters like Mr. Dahl's, that there is a need to limit the LSV class to 
small vehicles, to prevent attempts to circumvent the FMVSS for cars, 
trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles by applying the LSV 
classification to vehicle types that are able to meet the standards, 
and to make the definition more complete. The exclusion of trucks from 
the definition of LSV does not accomplish this goal. As such, we are 
proposing to limit the definition of LSV to small vehicles objectively 
through the use of a limitation on the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating 
(GVWR) combined with a requirement for a minimum rated cargo load 
(RCL).
    We have tentatively identified vehicles with a GVWR of less than 
2,500 pounds as constituting a class of motor vehicles so small that 
vehicles in this class are generally unable to meet all of the FMVSS 
required for passenger cars, multipurpose vehicles, and trucks. When 
trucks were originally excluded from the definition of LSV, the agency 
was considering heavy, slow moving vehicles (e.g., street cleaners) 
that, because of their heavier weight, were able to meet all of the 
FMVSS applicable to trucks. Under the proposed definition, these 
heavier, but slower moving trucks would still be excluded from the 
definition of LSV and thus would still be required to meet all of the 
FMVSSs applicable to trucks.
    The tentative GVWR limit is a result of examining the GVWRs of 
existing NEVs, GVWR ranges submitted by companies registering with 
NHTSA as intending to manufacture LSVs, and, as a comparison group, 
small passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks that 
are certified to all applicable FMVSS. We also note that the Society of 
Automotive Engineers Surface Vehicle Standard J2358, Low Speed 
Vehicles, includes in its scope:

any powered vehicle with a minimum of 4-wheels, a maximum level 
ground speed of more than 32 km/h (20 mph) but less than 40 km/h (25 
mph), a maximum rated capacity of 500 kg (1100 lb), and a maximum 
gross vehicle weight of 1135 kg (2500 lb), that is intended for 
transporting not more than four (4) persons and operating on 
designated roadways where permitted by law.

    The U.S. Department of Energy conducted a Field Operations Program, 
``NEVAmerica''. We examined the vehicle specifications of the vehicles 
involved in that program. Five examples are: the Columbia ParCar four-
passenger, Ford Th!nk four-passenger, GEM E825 long bed utility, GEM 
E825 short bed utility, Frazer-Nash 4XLSV NEV. Specifications for these 
vehicles are given in the table below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             GVWR \5\ in
             Vehicle                     Configuration          pounds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GEM E825 Short Bed Utility.......  2-passenger seating, 4-     1,790 \6\
                                    foot aluminum cargo bed.
GEM E825 Long Bed Utility........  2-passenger seating, 6-         2,300
                                    foot aluminum cargo bed.
Ford Th!nk Neighbor \7\..........  4-passenger seating,....        2,300
Columbia ParCar..................  4-passenger seating,....        2,460
Frazer-Nash 4XLSV NEV............  2-passenger seating,           3,304
                                    pick-up truck-like bed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ As listed in the NEV America results.
\6\ GEM sales literature lists this vechilce as 1,850 pounds.
\7\ Ford no longer produced the Th!nk vehicle.

    Thirty-nine manufacturers have registered with NHTSA as intending 
to manufacture LSVs. Of these, six manufacturers have listed the GVWR 
range of their vehicles as including vehicles over 3,500 pounds, five 
more list the GVWR range of their vehicles as including vehicles over 
2,500 pounds, and three manufacturers do not list a GVWR range. We do 
not know how many of these 39 manufacturers are currently manufacturing 
and selling vehicles certified as LSVs or the GVWR of any vehicles 
certified as LSVs.
    For comparison purposes, we sought out passenger cars, multipurpose 
passenger vehicles, and trucks that are certified as fully compliant 
with all applicable FMVSS. Example vehicles and their GVWR are shown 
below (model year 2003).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               GVWR in
              Vehicle                         Type              pounds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honda Insight.....................  Passenger car..........        2,212
Toyota Echo.......................  Passenger car..........        3,010
Hyundai Accent....................  Passenger car..........        3,310
Chevrolet Tracker.................  SUV....................        3,483
Honda Civic.......................  Passenger car..........        3,485
Toyota Prius......................  Passenger car..........        3,615
Ford Focus........................  Passenger car..........        3,620

[[Page 68322]]

 
Toyota RAV4.......................  SUV....................        3,841
Jeep Wrangler.....................  SUV....................        4,450
Ford Ranger.......................  Extended cab pick-up...        4,800
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is obvious from this table that there are vehicles currently 
available, certified to the FMVSS, with a GVWR less than the GVWR of 
some NEVs. At this time, we believe that there can be no logical 
justification for allowing wholesale exclusion from the FMVSS of 
vehicles that are heavier than some fully-certified vehicles, other 
than providing some weight allowance for an electric propulsion system 
(which is generally heavier than a small internal-combustion engine). 
We believe that many LSVs are electric. We are especially hesitant to 
allow heavier vehicles to be certified as LSVs when there are currently 
no performance requirements for service brakes and tires appropriate 
for the weight of the vehicle. We are proposing to set the GVWR ceiling 
for the LSV class at 2,500 pounds to allow for the generally heavier 
electric propulsion systems and need for storage batteries. We are 
currently working on a rulemaking to establish performance standards 
for LSVs and the issue of the appropriate GVWR for LSVs could be 
revisited when such requirements are identified. We seek comment from 
vehicle manufacturers and users on the issue of the appropriate GVWR 
limit for LSVs.
    We are tentatively proposing an additional requirement of a minimum 
RCL of 80 pounds. Eighty pounds is the approximate weight of two full 
golf bags. GVWR must be greater than the sum of the unloaded vehicle 
weight, RCL, and 150 pounds times the number of designated seating 
positions (DSPs). (49 CFR 567.4(g)(3).) Given the lack of a tire 
performance standard applicable to this vehicle type, risk of tire 
failure due to vehicle overloading is increased. Combining a minimum 
RCL with a maximum GVWR ensures some load carrying capacity in addition 
to the regulatory requirement of 150 pounds per DSP. Given that these 
vehicles typically have only two DSPs, they are more likely than an 
ordinary passenger vehicle to driven fully loaded. We seek comment on 
our rationale for imposing a minimum RCL, and what that minimum should 
be.
    In summary, the proposed change to the definition of LSV would make 
the definition more complete and less open to the necessity of 
interpretation, clearer as to the type of vehicle NHTSA intended to be 
excluded from the FMVSS for cars, trucks and multipurpose passenger 
vehicles under the LSV definition, and allow the manufacturers of LSVs 
more flexibility in the design of their products without sacrificing 
the safety of the vehicles' users. Further, the crash avoidance and 
crash protection requirements for an LSV are appropriate for that 
vehicle's size regardless of whether the vehicle is designed to 
transport passengers or cargo.

III. Proposed Effective Date

    This proposal would remove the provision that precludes the 
manufacture of trucks as LSVs, and add the restriction that LSVs must 
have a GVWR less than 2,500 pounds and RCL of at least 80 pounds. The 
agency has limited knowledge as to the number of manufacturers 
producing or intending to produce motor vehicles certified as LSVs 
under the existing definition of that term. Further, the agency has 
limited knowledge as to the exact specifications of the LSVs currently 
manufactured and is not aware of any LSV currently manufactured that 
would no longer be classified as an LSV under the proposed definition. 
However, based on the information the agency does have, we do not 
anticipate that any LSV currently produced would need to be redesigned 
to meet the proposed definition.
    Therefore, NHTSA is proposing that an effective date 45 days after 
the publication of a final rule. The 45 day effective date would allow 
LSV manufacturers the flexibility to proceed with the introduction of 
new vehicles as quickly as possible. The agency is requesting comment 
on the appropriateness of the proposed lead time.

IV. Comments

Questions for Comment

    In addition to comments on the proposed rule, the agency is seeking 
comments on the following specific issues.

    1. Are there reasons we should allow some heavier vehicles to be 
certified as LSVs? If so, would GVWR be sufficient to identify those 
vehicles or should other criteria be used in conjunction with GVWR?
    2. Is restricting the GVWR the most appropriate method of 
restricting the size of LSVs?
    3. Is our belief that many LSVs are electric correct and is the 
proposed weight allowance for the electric propulsion system 
appropriate?
    4. We request comment on the exact specifications of LSVs that 
manufacturers are currently producing or planning to produce to aid us 
in determining if a longer lead time should be provided. With respect 
to manufacturers contemplating the production of LSVs above the 
proposed limit, to what extent have investments been made to bring 
these vehicles to market?
    5. We request information on the GVWR, RCL, and power plant 
specifications of LSVs currently being manufactured.

    When commenting on these issues, commenters should remember that 
vehicles designed primarily for use off the public roads, regardless of 
weight or speed, are not subject to the FMVSS. Therefore, certification 
as an LSV is not necessary for vehicles which operate only on private 
roads and grounds, such as at airports, some academic and business 
campuses, and industrial plants and grounds.

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.) 
We 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 website at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to

[[Page 68323]]

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 
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?

    We 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, we will also consider 
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket 
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider it in 
developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we 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, we will 
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
http://dms.dot.gov.

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under 
E.O. 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies 
and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O. 
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' Based on the limited 
information currently available to the agency, as discussed under 
Section III, Proposed Effective Date, the agency tentatively concludes 
that the proposed amendments would not have more than a minimal impact 
on LSV manufacturers and users. The agency is not aware of any LSV 
currently produced that would no longer be classified as an LSV under 
the proposed definition or that would need to be redesigned because of 
that proposal.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this notice under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. Based on the limited information currently 
available to the agency, as discussed under Section III, Proposed 
Effective Date, I certify that the proposed amendment would not have a 
significant economic impact on LSV manufacturers. The proposed 
definition would permit more flexibility in the design of LSVs and 
allow manufacturers to broaden the LSV market. The agency cannot 
forecast the extent to which manufacturers would take advantage of that 
opportunity. Therefore, a Preliminary Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
has not been performed. The agency is requesting comments on this 
certification.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this proposed rule under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) and determined that it would not impose 
any new information collection requirements as that term is defined by 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 5 CFR part 1320.

The National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has also analyzed this proposed rule under the National 
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would have no 
significant impact on the human environment. LSV usage is very small in 
comparison to that of motor vehicles as a whole; therefore, any change 
to the LSV segment would not have a significant environmental effect.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires 
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 annually. This proposal would not result in annual 
expenditures exceeding the $100 million threshold.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132 on ``Federalism'' requires us 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.'' The Executive Order defines this phrase 
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.'' The agency has analyzed this rule in 
accordance with the principles and criteria set forth in Executive 
Order

[[Page 68324]]

13132 and has determined that it will not have sufficient federalism 
implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or 
the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This rule 
regulates the manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle 
equipment and will not have substantial direct effect 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132.

Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This proposed rule has no retroactive effect. NHTSA is not aware of 
any state law that would be preempted by this proposed rule. This 
proposed rule would not repeal any existing Federal law or regulation. 
If this proposal were to become a final rule, it would modify existing 
law only to the extent that it would change the definition of a low-
speed vehicle. This proposed rule would not require submission of a 
petition for reconsideration or the initiation of other administrative 
proceedings before a party may file suit in court.

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.

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:

--Have we 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 we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
--What else could we 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.

Data Quality Guidelines

    After reviewing the provisions of proposed rule, pursuant to OMB's 
Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, 
Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies 
(``Guidelines'') issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
(67 FR 8452, Feb. 22, 2002) and published in final form by the 
Department of Transportation on October 1, 2002 (67 FR 61719), NHTSA 
has determined that nothing in this rulemaking action would result in 
``information dissemination'' to the public, as that term is defined in 
the Guidelines.

Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``'economically significant''' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, 
health or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives considered by us. As noted earlier, this rule is 
not economically significant, nor does it concern a safety risk with a 
disproportionate effect on children.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary 
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would 
be inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., the statutory provisions 
regarding NHTSA's vehicle safety authority) or otherwise impractical. 
In meeting that available and potentially applicable voluntary 
consensus standard, we are required by the Act to provide Congress, 
through OMB, an explanation of the reasons for not using such 
standards. This rule does not propose any standards, consensus-based or 
otherwise.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Low-speed vehicles.
    For reasons set forth in the preamble, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 
CFR 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: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30166 and 30177; delegation of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

Subpart A--General

    2. Section 571.3(b) would be amended by revising the term ``low-
speed vehicle'' to read as follows:
* * * * *


Sec.  571.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) Other definitions * * *
* * * * *
    Low-speed vehicle (LSV) means,
    (a) a 4-wheeled motor vehicle,
    (b) whose speed attainable in 1.6 km (1 mile) is more than 32 
kilometers per hour (20 miles per hour) and not more than 40 kilometers 
per hour (25 miles per hour) on a paved level surface,
    (c) whose rated cargo load is at least 36 kilograms (80 pounds), 
and
    (d) whose GVWR is less than 1,134 kilograms (2,500 pounds).
* * * * *

    Dated: December 3, 2003.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 03-30379 Filed 12-5-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P