Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules 1077

§ 21.4253 Accredited courses.

* * * * *

(d) School qualification. * * *

(1) The institution (other than an

elementary or secondary school) has

submitted to the State approving agency

copies of its catalog or bulletin which

are certified as true and correct in

content and policy by an authorized

representative, and the publication

shall:

(i) State with specificity the

requirements of the institution with

respect to graduation;

(ii) Include institution policy and

regulations relative to standards of

progress required of the student by the

institution (this policy will define the

grading system of the institution, the

minimum grades considered

satisfactory, conditions for interruption

for unsatisfactory grades or progress, a

description of the probationary period,

if any, allowed by the institution,

conditions of reentrance for those

students dismissed for unsatisfactory

progress, and a statement regarding

progress records kept by the institution

and furnished the student);

(iii) Include institution policy and

regulations relating to student conduct

and conditions for dismissal for

unsatisfactory conduct; and

(iv) Include any attendance standards

of the institution if the institution has

and enforces such standards.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3675(a), 3676(b))

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–355 Filed 1–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 96–65; Notice 2]

RIN 2127–AG58

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document initiates

rulemaking based upon oral

presentations at the agency’s public

meetings and written comments

received on the appropriate

classification and safety regulations for

golf carts and other small, light-weight

vehicles that are capable of being driven

on the public roads. In response to these

comments, NHTSA proposes that a new

category of motor vehicle be established,

called ‘‘low-speed vehicle.’’ A lowspeed vehicle (LSV) would be any motor

vehicle, other than a motorcycle, whose

top speed does not exceed 25 mph.

Under a proposed new standard,

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

No. 100, LSVs would be equipped with

certain basic items of motor vehicle

safety equipment, such as seat belts, in

lieu of complying with the Federal

motor vehicle safety and bumper

standards that would apply if the

vehicles were categorized according to

existing vehicle types. LSVs would also

have a label warning against driving

them at speeds that exceed 25 mph. A

‘‘golf cart’’, a vehicle that is used to

carry golfers on golf courses and that

has a top speed of 15 mph or less,

would not be considered a motor

vehicle, consistent with the agency’s

past interpretations. A ‘‘golf car’’, a

vehicle that is used to carry golfers on

golf courses and that has a top speed

that exceeds 15 mph, but does not

exceed 25 mph, would be a motor

vehicle and required to comply with

Standard No. 100. This rulemaking

action is intended to supersede the

agency’s past interpretations excluding

from regulation motor vehicles with a

distinctive configuration and a top

speed of not more than 20 mph, and to

bring all such vehicles under the

statutory requirements to notify and

remedy safety related defects, and when

effective, noncompliances with

Standard No. 100.

DATES: Comments are due February 24,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

Docket No. 96–65; Notice 2, and be

submitted to Docket Section, National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

Room 5109, 400 7th Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Z.

Taylor Vinson, Office of Chief Counsel,

NHTSA, Room 5219, 400 7th Street,

SW, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone

202–366–5263).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

In order to afford the reader a full

understanding of the agency’s tentative

decision, this notice will repeat, rather

than refer the reader to, much of the

discussion that appeared in Notice 1,

published at 61 FR 30848 on June 18,

1996.

As discussed below in greater detail,

vehicles such as golf carts have not been

regulated by NHTSA because they were

not considered to be manufactured for

use on the public roads. Even when a

vehicle is being used on the roads,

NHTSA has not regulated if it had an

unusual configuration, and if it had a

top speed of 20 mph or less. However,

the agency has become aware that the

design and use of some of these vehicles

are evolving in previously unanticipated

ways. Although golf carts have

traditionally been limited in their

operations to golf courses, some states

have taken legislative actions that

permit the use of golf carts on some

public roads at speeds up to 25 mph. In

addition, there appears to be a growing

interest worldwide in small vehicles of

unconventional configurations that are

capable of exceeding 20 mph, and that

are intended for on-road use as city or

commuter cars. While some of these

vehicles do not resemble very small

passenger cars, neither do they resemble

the traditional golf cart.

The agency decided to review its

historical position in light of these

changing circumstances. To aid it in its

review, NHTSA established Docket No.

96–65 and held two public meetings to

receive the comments of manufacturers

and users of these vehicles, local elected

and law enforcement officials, public

interest groups, and other interested

persons, on safety and regulatory issues

affecting golf carts and other lightweight limited-speed vehicles. The first

meeting was held in Palm Desert,

California, on July 18, 1996. The second

meeting took place on July 25, 1996, at

NHTSA headquarters in Washington,

D.C. Written comments were requested

to be submitted by August 8, 1996.

II. Legal Considerations

A. Federal Law

Title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 grants

NHTSA regulatory authority over

‘‘motor vehicles.’’ All ‘‘motor vehicles’’

are subject to the Federal motor vehicle

safety standards promulgated by

NHTSA pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30111,

and to the notification and remedy

provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30118–30121.

Those provisions must be followed in

the event a motor vehicle is determined

to fail to comply with a safety standard,

or incorporates a safety related defect. A

‘‘motor vehicle’’ is defined as a vehicle

‘‘manufactured primarily for use on the

public streets, roads, and highways’’

(Sec. 30102(a)(6)). The agency’s

interpretations of the definition have

centered on the meaning of the word

‘‘primarily.’’ The agency has generally

interpreted ‘‘primarily’’ to mean that a

significant portion of a vehicle’s use

must be on the public roads in order for

the vehicle to be considered to be a

motor vehicle.

NHTSA’s principal interpretation of

the definition of ‘‘motor vehicle’’ dates
1078 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules

from 1969, and addressed the status of

mini-bikes. NHTSA said that the

capability of a vehicle to be operated on

the public roads would be an important

criterion in determining whether it was

a ‘‘motor vehicle’’, but that test would

not be reached if there were clear

evidence as a practical matter that the

vehicle was not being used on the

public roads. In NHTSA’s view, ‘‘in the

case of self-propelled riding mowers,

golf carts, and many other similar selfpropelled vehicles, such clear evidence

exists.’’ Thus, since 1969, the agency

has declined to regulate golf carts since

they were not being operated on the

public roads.

The agency’s interpretations have also

excluded from regulation motor vehicles

that had ‘‘abnormal’’ configurations and

a top speed of 20 miles per hour or less.

As an example, NHTSA informed

Trans2 Corporation in 1994 that its

‘‘low-speed electric vehicle’’ intended

for use in residential communities,

university campuses, and industrial

complexes was not a ‘‘motor vehicle’’

because it had a top speed of 20 mph

and unusual body features that made it

readily distinguishable from other

‘‘motor vehicles.’’ These features

included an oval-shaped passenger

compartment, taillamps built into

headrests, and a configuration the

approximate size and height of a golf

cart. On the other hand, in 1995,

NHTSA informed Goodlife Motors

Corporation that its ‘‘super golf car’’ was

a motor vehicle because it had a top

speed of 29 mph and its configuration

resembled that of a prototype

Volkswagen passenger car.

NHTSA is aware that several

companies want to manufacture small

battery-powered vehicles for use on the

public roads which they call

‘‘Neighborhood Electric Vehicles’’

(‘‘NEV’’). The configuration of a NEV

may or may not be ‘‘abnormal’’, and its

top speed may be as high as 35 mph.

Any vehicle with a top speed over 20

mph is a ‘‘motor vehicle’’ under

NHTSA’s existing interpretations,

regardless of its configuration. As such,

a NEV would have to comply with all

Federal vehicle safety standards that

apply to heavier and faster passenger

cars. Whether conformance of NEVs

with these standards is reasonable,

practicable and appropriate is an issue

that NHTSA must consider.

B. State Laws

1. California

a. Definitions of ‘‘Motor Vehicle’’ and

‘‘Golf Cart’’

Since 1959, the California Vehicle

Code (‘‘CVC’’) has defined a motor

vehicle as any ‘‘vehicle which is selfpropelled’’ (CVC Sec. 415). California

defines a golf cart as ‘‘a motor vehicle

having not less than three wheels in

contact with the ground, having an

unladen weight less than 1,300 pounds

which is designed to be and is operated

at not more than 25 miles per hour and

designed to carry golf equipment and

not more than two persons, including

the driver’’ (CVC Sec. 345).

b. 1994 Cal SB 2610 and 1995 Cal AB

110

In 1992, California amended its

Streets and Highway Code (‘‘CSHC’’) to

establish a Golf Cart Transportation

Pilot Program for the City of Palm Desert

(CSHC Secs. 1930–37). The 1992 law

was replaced in 1994 by SB 2610 which

added Chapter 6, CSHC, to establish a

‘‘Golf Cart Transportation Plan’’

applicable to the City of Palm Desert

and the City of Roseville.

Chapter 6 was amended in 1995 by

AB 110 to apply to any city or county

in California. Chapter 6, as amended by

AB 110, allows local jurisdictions to

establish a Golf Cart Transportation Plan

area in which golf carts are permitted to

operate on ‘‘golf cart lanes’’, defined as

‘‘roadways * * * shared with

pedestrians, bicyclists, and other

motorists in the plan area’’ (CSHC

1951). Each plan must include

minimum design criteria for safety

features on golf carts. Only seat belts

and covered passenger compartments

are specifically required. However, the

law states that a plan ‘‘may include’’

other safety features such as headlamps,

turn signals, mirrors, stop lamps, and

windshields.

A plan under the California law must

also include a permit process for golf

carts to ensure that they meet the

minimum design criteria, and golf cart

operators meet minimum safety criteria.

At a minimum, an operator must have

a valid California driver’s license and

carry a minimum amount of insurance.

In addition, the law requires a plan to

allow only carts equipped with the

requisite safety equipment to be

operated on ‘‘separated golf cart lanes’’

identified in the plan. Lane striping on

the pavement surface is sufficient for a

lane to qualify as a ‘‘separated golf cart

lane.’’ Under the Palm Desert plan, there

are two types of on-road lanes, a ‘‘Class

II Golf Cart Lane’’ for use only by golf

carts and bicycles, and a ‘‘Class III Golf

Cart Route’’ for shared use with

automobile traffic at speeds up to 25

mph (the Route is identified by placing

Golf Cart Route signs along roadways).

In summary, through its Vehicle Code

and Streets and Highway Code,

California now has in place a regulatory

scheme under which golf carts may use

‘‘separated’’, limited-speed portions of

the public roads at speeds up to 25 mph

when equipped with the safety features

required by local authorities. Under

NHTSA’s existing interpretation, golf

carts and other vehicles designed for use

in such jurisdictions that are capable of

operating at speeds above 20 mph in

golf cart lanes would be ‘‘motor

vehicles’’, subject to the Federal motor

vehicle safety standards that apply to

heavier and faster motor vehicles.

Moreover, under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b),

Federal standards would preempt the

local requirements referred to in the

California statutes.

The evolution in the use of golf carts

presents a number of policy issues that

need to be addressed. This notice

proposes to resolve those issues.

2. Legislation in Other States

In Arizona, Senate Bill 1298 was

enacted in 1996. It permits NEVs to be

operated at speeds up to 25 mph on

public roads with posted speeds of not

more than 35 mph. The law does not

require either that separated lanes be

created or that the NEVs be operated in

those lanes only. Florida House Bill

1329, which has passed both Houses of

the Florida Legislature, would also

permit increased use of golf carts on

public roads.

III. Expression of Support by State

Officials and Others

During the spring of 1996, NHTSA

received letters from several elected

officials in California asking the agency

to support the concept of golf cart

transportation plans and the use of golf

carts and NEVs at speeds up to 25 mph

on public roads. The agency held a

public meeting in Palm Desert,

California, on July 18, 1996, to hear first

hand the comments of interested

persons. NHTSA’s public meeting in

Palm Desert provided a forum for the

expression of views by local officials

responsible for the implementation of

golf cart transportation plans and

enforcement of traffic and safety laws,

as well as by residents who use golf

carts pursuant to such plans. Earlier in

the day, with the assistance of the City

of Palm Desert, NHTSA representatives

were able to make an on-site

examination of the practical details of

an actual golf cart transportation plan in

action. Activities included operating

golf carts on designated lanes in the

plan area, crossing intersections, and

mixing with the local traffic.

After the second public meeting, held

at NHTSA headquarters in Washington

on July 25, 1996, transcripts of both

meetings were placed in Docket No. 96–

65.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules 1079

IV. Market Forces

Another purpose for the public

meetings was for NHTSA to achieve a

better understanding of the market and

the vehicles that may emerge to serve

the consumer preferences reflected in

the legislative developments in

California, Arizona, and Florida.

At least one specialty manufacturer,

Bombardier, Inc. (Bombardier) informed

NHTSA that it would like to enter the

market for a ‘‘new and growing segment

of the transportation fleet: low-powered

electric vehicles.’’ It has developed a

NEV with a top speed of 25 mph for this

market, and believes that its vehicle will

provide a low cost, low speed, zero

emissions mode of localized

transportation to meet the special needs

of retirees, older Americans and others

living in gated communities for travel

within their community or for limited

activities such as local golfing and other

recreation-related, shopping, or short

distance trips.

According to Bombardier, municipal

governments endorse the concept as a

way of helping them meet Clean Air Act

mandates for National Ambient Air

Quality Standards by eliminating the

polluting effects of short distance

automobile trips.

Bombardier has asked NHTSA for an

interpretation that the NEV it wishes to

manufacture and market in these

communities is not a ‘‘motor vehicle’’

for purposes of the Federal motor

vehicle safety standards. Bombardier’s

request was premised on the agency’s

concluding that the NEV has an

abnormal configuration and deciding to

raise the maximum speed criterion from

20 mph to 25 mph.

V. Comments Requested by NHTSA

It is in the context discussed above

that NHTSA has reexamined its current

interpretation of ‘‘motor vehicle’’ to

determine the reasonable and

appropriate treatment of golf carts,

NEVs, and other low-speed vehicles

under Federal law. In Notice No. 1,

NHTSA invited comments on the

following issues to be discussed at the

public meetings and to be submitted to

the docket:

1. Current and anticipated state and

municipal regulations, including

infrastructure requirements, relating to

the use of public roads by golf carts or

NEVs at speeds between 20 and 35 mph.

2. The text of any existing or proposed

state or local safety standards applicable

to golf carts, NEVs, and other low-speed

vehicles.

3. The views of owners and users of

golf carts, NEVs, and other low-speed

vehicles.

4. Any data relating to on-road safety

of golf carts, NEVs, and other low-speed

vehicles.

5. The views of law enforcement,

safety, and health officials concerning

the on-road use of golf carts, NEVs, or

other low-speed at various speeds.

6. The views of manufacturers of golf

carts, NEVs, and other low-speed

vehicles as to the burdens of compliance

with Federal motor vehicle safety

standards and other regulations.

7. The views of commenters as to

safety and bumper standards that would

be reasonable, practicable, and

appropriate for golf carts, NEVs, and

other low-speed vehicles.

8. The views of state and local

officials as to Federal regulation of golf

carts, NEVs, and other low-speed

vehicles.

9. The views of other affected

associations, advocacy groups, business

entities and individuals.

VI. Analysis and Discussion of

Comments

Oral presentations were made in Palm

Desert, in the following order by the

persons indicated: Roy Wilson

(Riverside County Board of

Supervisors), Ramon Diaz (Palm Desert

city manager), Commander Steven

Bloomquist (Palm Desert Section,

Riverside County Sheriff’s Office), Kim

Estock (district manager for

Assemblyman Jim Battin), Bob Stranger

(regional manager, California Edison),

David Bentler (electric transportation

project manager, Arizona Public Service

Economic and Community

Development), Steve Pohle (president,

Golf Cars Ltd.), Mark Boutin (vice

president of market development,

Bombardier), Gus Gonzalez (golf cart

owner), Lisa Constande (environmental

conservation manager, City of Palm

Desert), Betty Carapellese (resident of

Palm Desert), and James Thomas (vicepresident of sales and marketing, Trans2

Corporation), who also spoke in

Washington.

In addition to Mr. Thomas,

presentations were made at the

Washington meeting by Fred L. Somers,

Jr. (general counsel, National Golf Cars

Manufacturers Association (NGCMA)),

Karen Strickland (Department of Motor

Vehicles, State of Arizona), Bonnie

Singer (consultant), Lou Finch

(president of Electric Vehicle Systems

Corporation, a prospective manufacturer

of vehicles for the mobility impaired),

and David Snyder (American Insurance

Association).

Written comments were received from

Rep. Sonny Bono, and, in the order

received, from Lois Wolk (mayor, City of

Davis), J. Douglass Lynn (Lynn &

Associates with a subsequent

submission as well, Bombardier, Dr.

Tim Lynch (Director, Center for

Economic Forecasting and Analysis,

Institute for Science and Public Affairs,

Florida State University), the City of

Palm Desert, Richard S. Kelley

(president, Southern California

Association of Governments, two

comments by Mr. Thomas of Trans2

Corporation, Jim Douglas (assistant

director, Motor Vehicle Division,

Arizona Department of Transportation,

the written remarks of Mr. Somers,

several video tapes, Dr. James M. Lents

(executive officer, South Coast Air

Quality Management District), George

Boal (resident of Palm Desert), Marilyn

D. McLaughlin (resident of Palm

Desert), David Guthrie (deputy director,

Arizona Department of Commerce,

Harry C. Gough (automotive engineering

professional specialist, Connecticut

Department of Motor Vehicles), Paul

and Jacklyn Schlagheck (residents of

Lady Lake, Florida), Dr. Gerald

Donaldson (senior research director,

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety

(‘‘Advocates’’)), Jim Prentice (resident of

Port St. Lucie, Florida), Paul Jackson

Rice, Esq. (Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin &

Kahn), Sheriff Ralph E. Ogden of Yuma,

Arizona, Lawrence Lingbloom (Sierra

Club California), Cynthia Kelly, Esq.,

(government relations counsel, Golf

Course Superintendents Association of

America), the Board of Directors of the

Palm Desert Country Club Association,

Gerald W. (‘‘Wally’’) Powell (reliability

engineer, EZGO Textron (‘‘EZGO’’)), Bob

Doyle (assistant sheriff, patrol and

investigations division, Riverside

County Sheriff’s Office), Wayne Balmer

(community development director,

Mesa, Arizona), and Marvin B. Jaques

(vice president special projects,

Ransomes American Corporation

(‘‘Cushman’’), the manufacturer of

Cushman utility vehicles.

The commenters thus included

representatives of state and local

governments including law enforcement

officials, manufacturers and users of

NEVs and golf carts, representatives of

utilities, a public interest group, and

other interested persons. NHTSA

therefore considers that the public and

private interests that would be affected

by its decision were fairly and fully

represented, and that its tentative

decision in this matter is consistent

with the comments received and with

motor vehicle safety.

NHTSA’s Docket Room has assigned a

number to each comment. For example,

the first comment is denoted ‘‘96–65–

NO1–001.’’ For simplicity, in discussing

specific submissions, this notice uses
1080 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules

only the last three digits to identify the

comment, i.e., ‘‘001.’’

In brief, the political authorities and

the public supported electric golf carts

and NEVs as addressing the public

interest in a cleaner environment (see,

for example, comments by the City of

Palm Desert, 005). Users noted

approvingly the mobility that is afforded

by the ability to use golf carts and NEVs

on the public roads as an alternative to

the passenger car for short in-town trips

(see, for example, comments by Paul

and Jacklyn Schlagheck, 020). These

groups testified to the absence of any

on-road safety problems to date

involving golf carts and opposed any

regulation by NHTSA that would curtail

driving them on the public roads, or that

would increase their costs. Golf cart

manufacturers objected to the possible

classification their products as ‘‘motor

vehicles’’ and wished to remain free of

Federal regulation.

After having reviewed these

comments, the agency has reached the

tentative decisions discussed below.

A. Exclusions of Motor Vehicles From

Regulation Based on Existing

Configuration and Speed Tests Are no

Longer Viable

Dr. Lents asked NHTSA to ‘‘recognize

that a major revolution in transportation

is occurring with the increasing

commercialization of zero emission

vehicles.’’ (015). Realizing that

resolution of the issues would have

ramifications beyond Bombardier and

California, NHTSA decided to begin its

deliberative process by reviewing its

current interpretative posture.

Under these interpretations, vehicles

that clearly were ‘‘motor vehicles’’

manufactured for on-road use were

nonetheless excused from compliance

with the agency’s regulations if they had

an abnormal configuration and if their

top speed did not exceed 20 mph.

Because of the increase in severity of

motor vehicle crashes that occur at 25

mph compared with those that occur at

20 mph, NHTSA never considered it a

viable option to raise the definitional

criterion to the higher speed as

Bombardier requested. Advocates, in

fact, asked that the speed be lowered to

15 mph (021).

In the agency’s opinion, the test of

whether a particular configuration is

‘‘abnormal’’ has evolved to the point at

which its results are arbitrary and

subjective. It was initially applied to

vehicles such as street sweepers whose

unusual configuration, in conjunction

with their large size, enabled drivers of

other vehicles to spot them at a distance

in traffic. Over the years, the agency’s

interpretations have come simply to

inquire whether a vehicle has an

unusual configuration without regard to

the bottomline significance of that

configuration, i.e., whether the vehicle

could be readily spotted at a distance in

traffic. The extent of the evolution is

illustrated by conclusions in some

recent interpretations that various small

vehicles met the configuration/speed

criteria, notwithstanding that the

vehicles were so small that they could

not in fact be readily seen in

approaching or preceding traffic.

Further, perceptions of ‘‘abnormality’’

are subject to change in time as the

shapes of motor vehicles evolve to more

aerodynamic forms. In addition, upon

reexamination, the basis for the criterion

of a top speed of 20 mph was unclear.

As Lynn asked, why not 19 or 21? (002).

For these reasons, the agency has

tentatively decided that the existing

tests should no longer be followed.

Instead, the agency believes it should

follow and apply the statutory

definition of ‘‘motor vehicle’’ with no

embellishments. Thus, the only

question to answer would be whether a

vehicle is manufactured primarily for

use on the public streets, roads, and

highways. If the answer is ‘‘yes,’’ then

the vehicle in question is a motor

vehicle subject to NHTSA’s jurisdiction,

regardless of speed and configuration.

NHTSA intends this policy to apply to

vehicle types previously excluded on

the basis of their configuration and

speed. However, with respect to

individual motor vehicles, it would

apply to only those manufactured on or

after the effective date of a final rule in

this rulemaking proceeding.

NHTSA wishes to assure

manufacturers of off-road vehicles that

the basic legal test of whether a

motorized vehicle is a ‘‘motor vehicle’’

has never been at issue in these

proceedings. If a vehicle is not

manufactured primarily for use on the

public streets, roads, and highways, it is

not a ‘‘motor vehicle’’. Under this test,

the agency has given opinions, for

example, that a vehicle whose use of the

public roads is occasioned only by the

infrequent need to travel from one offroad site to another is not a ‘‘motor

vehicle.’’ Other examples of vehicles

that are not regarded ‘‘motor vehicles’’

because of the lack of public road use

are airport crash and rescue vehicles,

buses used to transport passengers from

parking lots to air terminals, and small

utility vehicles used in plants and for

grounds maintenance on private

property regardless of their top speed.

This line of interpretations remains in

effect and is not affected by the agency’s

contemplated abandonment of its

exclusionary interpretations based on

speed and configuration.

After reaching this decision, the

agency proceeded to the issues of

classification and regulations that might

be appropriate for NEVs, on-road golf

carts, and other small vehicles.

B. Motor Vehicles With a Top Speed of

25 mph or Less Should be Classified as

‘‘Low-Speed Vehicles’’ (LSVs)

If the agency ceases to exclude

vehicles based on their configuration

and speed, vehicles previously excluded

on those bases would, without further

regulatory action, be treated as motor

vehicles and classified according to the

agency’s existing definitions for vehicle

types, such as ‘‘passenger car’’ and

‘‘truck.’’ This raises the question of

whether the Federal motor vehicle

safety standards applicable to these

categories of vehicles would also be

suitable for vehicles previously

excluded from them on the basis of their

configuration and speed. Sheriff Ogden

commented that it would be in the best

interests of law enforcement to classify

NEVs as automobiles (i.e., passenger

cars) and that they be made to comply

with the same criteria as automobiles

(026). But it is apparent to NHTSA that

requests for an expansion of the

exclusionary interpretation would not

have been made in the first instance if

golf carts and NEVs as currently

designed for production were able to be

readily conformed in a practicable

manner to the full range of Federal

safety standards.

NHTSA gathered some data on small

motor vehicles manufactured in other

countries, specifically Japan and France,

in order to determine how other

countries classify and regulate small

vehicles. In Japan, ‘‘kei’’ class cars must

be no wider than 1400 mm

(approximately 4.6 feet), and no longer

than 3300 mm (approximately 11 feet).

These dimensions are similar to those of

the Trans2, which is 4.5 feet wide and

11.75 feet long. To qualify for the ‘‘kei’’

class, gasoline-powered engines must

not have a displacement greater than

660 cc. In the limited time available,

NHTSA has been unable to determine

whether there was a speed limitation on

‘‘kei’’ class cars, or how or even if these

vehicles are regulated by the Japanese

government.

According to the January 1997 issue

of the American magazine

‘‘Automobile’’, there are two similar

vehicle classes in France. The first is

‘‘Voitures sans Permis’’ (VSP), allowed

to be operated without a driver’s

license, and the second, ‘‘Tricycles et

Quadricycles a Moteur’’ (TOM), slightly

larger and faster cars that may be driven
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules 1081

by persons with a partial permit.

NHTSA understands that approximately

9,000 VSPs and 1,000 TOMs are sold

each year in Europe, and that there are

more than 100,000 of them in operation.

Data gathered on seven current vehicles

indicates that they are similar in size to

the ‘‘kei’’ class, with displacement of

their one or two-cylinder engines

ranging from 315 cc to 505 cc. Five VSP

vehicles had an apparent top speed of

45 kph (approximately 27 mph,

reflecting a legal limit of 28 mph) and

two TOMs, 75 kph (45 mph, reflecting

a legal limit of 47 mph). VSPs are twoseater cars whose drivers must not be

younger than 14 years; TOMs are

designed to carry four, and must not be

driven by a person younger than 16. It

was not possible to determine in the

time available whether France requires

compliance with any safety

requirements, though basic safety

equipment such as lights, mirrors, and

wipers were visible in photographs of

these cars. NHTSA notes that all the

Japanese and French cars considered

resemble conventional passenger cars,

albeit much smaller, while NEVs and

golf carts do not. Thus, if they are

subject to some foreign regulations,

those regulations might not be

appropriate and practicable for small

vehicles of the less conventional types

anticipated to be on the American

market in the near future.

Seeking to draw a distinction between

golf carts and NEVs, that is to say,

between off-road and on-road small

vehicles, Somers of NGCMA asked that

NHTSA create a separate categories for

golf carts and NEVs (010), as did Powell

of EZGo (032). Douglas of Arizona DOT

suggested that NHTSA adopt his State’s

definitions of ‘‘golf cart’’ and ‘‘NEV’’

(008). Lynn, on the other hand,

recommended that NHTSA create a new

category of motor vehicle ‘‘designed for

local transportation applications’’ (002).

NHTSA concurs with Lynn’s

suggestion that it would be the

preferable regulatory solution to have a

single definition, one that is able to

encompass the entire population of golf

carts, NEVs, and small vehicles that

might not fit a definition for either.

Thus, NHTSA began to look for a

common characteristic of all these

vehicles in order to develop a definition

for them. A classification based on

vehicle dimensions such as the ‘‘kei’’

class appeared design restrictive, as did

one based on weight, a feature of state

definitions.

Ultimately NHTSA realized that the

comments pointed to a common factor

upon which a classification could be

based, a maximum vehicle speed of 25

mph. This speed value appears in the

definitions of golf carts by Arizona and

California, as well as in Arizona’s

definition of NEV. Twenty-five miles

per hour is the maximum speed in the

lanes on the public streets on which the

City of Palm Desert allows a mixture of

golf carts and larger vehicles to operate

(005). The City was resolute that it

would never allow golf carts to operate

on its streets at a speed greater than 25

mph. In justification of its support of a

threshold of 25 mph, one NEV

manufacturer commented that a vehicle

with a top speed of 25 mph flows ‘‘with

local traffic in speed limited areas rather

than inhibiting traffic at a lower speed.

A maximum speed of 25 mph also

provide increased maneuverability and

consistent power, even on hills’’

(Thomas of Trans2 (007)). This speed

was also supported by Commander

Bloomquist of the Sheriff’s Office: ‘‘[i]f

the golf carts have a greater speed, it is

a detriment on the one hand, but it also

allows it to get out of its own way from

time to time. It’s also important in

avoiding accidents and the such.’’ (011,

Palm Desert Meeting Transcript, p. 17).

Since there is a ready consensus that

NEVs and on-road golf carts should

have a top speed of not more than 25

mph, NHTSA believes that a maximum

speed of 25 mph should be the keystone

of any common definition

encompassing NEVs and on-road golf

carts (to the contrary were comments by

Somers and Donaldson of Advocates

who asked for a speed limit of 15 mph

for golf carts used on the public roads

(005, 021)), and Lynch who surmised

that a poll of states, municipalities, and

townships would show support for a 35

mph top speed for NEVs (004)).

To encompass the wide variety of

NEVs, golf carts, and other small

vehicles which may be manufactured in

the future, NHTSA is proposing creation

of a new class of vehicle called ‘‘lowspeed vehicle’’ (LSV) with a definitional

criterion of speed alone. LSVs would

include all motor vehicles, other than

motorcycles (‘‘motor driven cycles’’,

those of low power, have always been

regulated), whose speed attainable in 1

mile does not exceed 25 mph, regardless

of the vehicle’s size or weight. This

would mean that any motor vehicle,

whether an NEV, an on-road golf cart or

other vehicle, would be likely be treated

as a passenger car and thus subject to all

Federal motor vehicle safety standards

applicable to that class of vehicles if its

top speed is more than 25 mph.

C. Safety of Small Vehicles in LowSpeed Environments

The agency considered what Federal

safety requirements might be

appropriate for LSVs, vehicles with a

top speed of 25 mph or less. This

required an examination of the safety

problems that may presently exist for

small, slow-moving vehicles.

Intuitively, it appears that passengers in

LSVs might be at significant risk

because of the small size and relative

fragility of LSVs (none of the NEVs or

golf carts are, for example, equipped

with metal doors). The possibility of

such a risk was the express concern of

Advocates which observed that ‘‘small

light weight vehicles are vulnerable to

serious crashes even at low operating

speeds.’’ (021). However, because of the

scarcity of four-wheeled low-speed

motor vehicles in operation in the

United States, there are virtually no

accident data concerning them. Further,

data for more numerous types of small

vehicles, such as motor scooters and

motor bikes, are not really indicative of

the possible risk associated with NEVs,

given the greater vulnerability of all

two-wheeled vehicles in traffic.

Comments indicated that safety is not

a problem for those persons who

presently regulate and use on-road golf

carts. According to Assistant Sheriff

Doyle, ‘‘[t]o date [August 5, 1996] there

has not been one traffic collision

relating to the Palm Desert Golf Cart

Transportation Program [which has

been in effect for three years]. One

citation has been issued a golf cart

operator * * * for a city ordinance

violation prohibiting operation on a

non-designated roadway. The

Department has received no reports or

complaints about hazardous or unsafe

operation of these vehicles in the

program. From a police management

perspective, the program to date has

been a complete success.’’ (033). A

similar statement was made by

Commander Bloomquist who admitted

to having had initial concerns ‘‘about

the mixing of slow moving vehicles

with faster moving vehicles and also the

size difference, mentioning the physics

of the speed difference between golf

carts and passenger vehicles and trucks

and the like,’’ but concluded by saying

he was pleased and relieved ‘‘that we

have not had any accidents involving

the larger vehicles which move at a

greater speed with the slower moving

golf carts.’’ (011, Transcript, pp. 16–17).

Indeed, there has only been one

incident that might be termed an

accident—an overturn created by a joyriding teenager using a golf cart without

the owner’s authorization. Given the

fact that only 183 golf carts had been

registered by the City as of the date of

the public meeting, July 18, 1996, the

lack of accidents may not be statistically

significant. However, they are the only
1082 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules

relevant ‘‘data’’ that NHTSA has found

concerning the on-road safety of golf

carts.

Nevertheless, the Palm Desert

experience is supported by anecdotal

evidence from other commenters

covering a time span longer than three

years (the reader will recall that

California has authorized a more limited

use of the public roads since 1959).

Palm Desert resident Marilyn D.

McLaughlin said that ‘‘[f]or more than

34 years, golf cart owners here in Palm

Desert Country Club have shared the

streets with automobiles, trucks, etc.

and I have not heard of any reports of

accidents during that entire period’’. In

her opinion, ‘‘safety does not appear to

be an issue.’’ (017). Her view was

supported by another Palm Desert

resident, George Boal: ‘‘[i]n over 30

years I cannot recall one accident

involving moving vehicles and golf

carts.’’ (016). A somewhat similar

comment was made by Paul and Jacklyn

Schlagheck of Lady Lake, Florida,

indicating that the Palm Desert

experience may not be unique: ‘‘[t]he

use of golf carts has been safe, with

residents very responsible about where

and when they use them * * * It goes

without saying that people don’t take

their golf carts out * * * on busy roads

with speeds posted at 50 mph.’’ (020).

These comments are consistent with a

conclusion reached in the City of Palm

Desert’s ‘‘Golf Cart Transportation

Program Monitoring Report’’ (January

1994) (Attachment 3, 005) about the

safety of NEVs. In a discussion of safety

issues (The U.C. Davis Neighborhood

Electric Vehicle Research Project, p. 22),

the Report observes that ‘‘[w]hen the

vehicle is well matched with the driving

environment the vehicle will be very

safe.’’ Specifically, ‘‘[f]or the NEV, a

driving environment which consists of

lower speed streets is well matched to

the vehicle’s safety capabilities.’’

Conceding that NEVs are less visible

than other vehicles, are less able to

maintain safe operating speeds, and that

occupants are at greater risk of injury in

higher speed collisions, the Report

concluded that ‘‘[a]t lower speeds, these

issues are negligible.’’

Part of the reason for the lack of

accidents involving on-road golf carts

may be certain ordinances of Palm

Desert intended to minimize the

possibility of accidents involving golf

carts and other motor vehicles. One of

these prohibits operation of golf carts on

the public streets during the hours

between one hour after dusk and one

hour before dawn. Another restricts

their operation on the public streets to

designated lanes where the speed limit

for all vehicles using the lane is 25 mph.

Golf carts may not otherwise be

operated on public roads. In short, the

City has taken steps under State law to

create a structured environment for the

operation of golf carts on the public

roads consistent with its views of traffic

safety. There is no assurance, of course,

that other states or municipalities will

take these steps or otherwise address

operational safety in allowing golf carts

on the public roads, but NHTSA

commends the Palm Desert regulatory

scheme to their attention.

On the basis of comments discussed

above, the agency has tentatively

concluded that motor vehicle safety

does not demand, for the present, a

comprehensive and detailed regulatory

scheme under which LSVs must comply

with the full range of Federal motor

vehicle safety standards that apply to

faster vehicles. However, the risk of

exposure to accidents may increase as

the numbers of LSVs increase. Thus, at

a future time, more stringent regulation

might become appropriate. NHTSA

intends to monitor LSV accident data

carefully. Accordingly, the agency asks

the public to assist it in filing relevant

information in Docket No. 96–65 which

will remain open for this purpose.

D. A Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard for LSVs

If the agency were to cease relying

upon the interpretative criteria of

abnormal configuration and 20 mph

maximum speed, and to adopt the

proposed definition of LSVs, certain

unique vehicles found on the public

roads would be treated as LSVs.

Examples of these vehicles are street

sweepers, steamrollers and road graders.

The common characteristics of these

vehicles is that they are workperforming and transport only their

operator. Consistent with its past

interpretative treatment of such

vehicles, the agency proposes to exclude

work-performing LSVs from compliance

with any Federal motor vehicle safety

standard including the new Standard

No. 100 proposed in this document.

However, as motor vehicles, they would

become subject to the statutory

provisions regarding notification and

remedy of safety related defects.

NHTSA is also faced with the

regulatory dilemma of appropriate

treatment for golf carts, a type of vehicle

historically exempt from NHTSA

regulation. The agency has no wish to

regulate golf carts. However, it is faced

with an increasing number of state and

local laws specifically permitting their

use on the public streets, roads, and

highways.

As in the case of LSVs, maximum

vehicle speed appears to be a rational

basis on which to base a distinction

between those golf carts that should not

be considered motor vehicles and those

that should. Until recently, California

and Arizona defined a golf cart, in part,

as a vehicle with a top speed of 15 mph.

Golf cart manufacturers seem to have

adhered to this limit over the years.

ANSI/NGCMA Standard Z130.1–1993

prescribing voluntary safety and

performance requirements for golf carts

contains a maximum vehicle speed test

under which ‘‘[t]he average speed shall

not exceed 15 mi/h (24 km/h)’’ (9.6.1.3)

Average speed is determined through

runs in opposite directions and by

averaging the results. Thus, historically,

the industry appears to have designed

golf carts for a maximum speed of not

more than 15 mph. Historically, this is

the type of golf cart that NHTSA has not

regulated. The agency has therefore

tentatively concluded that a golf cart

with a maximum speed that does not

exceed 15 mph is a vehicle that is not

primarily manufactured for use on the

public roads, and therefore is not a

‘‘motor vehicle’’.

If a golf cart manufacturer decides to

increase the maximum speed capability

of its golf carts to above 15 mph in

response to the decision in some states

to increase the speed thresholds in their

definitions of ‘‘golf carts’’ and to allow

such vehicles to operate on certain

public roads, it seems evident to

NHTSA that such a manufacturer

intends its vehicles to be used on the

public roads as well as on golf courses.

Mr. Rice brought the agency’s attention

to an engine of 3.75 HP offered by one

golf cart manufacturer as an alternative

to the standard 3.1 HP engine. The

manufacturer’s product literature states

specifically that the motor does not

meet Z130.1’s standard for ‘‘speed

requirements.’’ (025). NHTSA interprets

this statement to mean that golf carts

equipped with the optional engine have

a maximum speed in excess of 15 mph.

In recognition of the apparent intent

that these higher speed vehicles be used

on public roads, NHTSA is proposing a

definition of ‘‘golf car’’ (the term

preferred by the NGCMA), as a vehicle

designed to convey golfers on a golf

course and whose maximum speed is

between 15 mph and 25 mph. Golf cars

would be considered to be LSVs and

thus required to meet LSV requirements.

NHTSA would use the term ‘‘golf cart’’

to refer to only those vehicles designed

to convey golfers on a golf course and

whose maximum speed is 15 mph.

As indicated, there was some

sentiment to applying a rigorous set of

safety standards to LSVs (Sheriff Ogden,

026; Advocates, 021). Lynn believed

that NHTSA should ‘‘create a new body
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules 1083

of safety standards that will challenge

the nation’s engineering community.’’

(002). Cushman took the gradualist

approach, commenting that ‘‘[s]tatistics

regarding frequency and severity of

accidents in these communities will

help determine appropriate safety

regulations and features. The bumper

standard may be appropriate for

occupant protection rather than limiting

body damage.’’ (037).

Two sources emerged from the

meeting and comments upon which a

safety standard for LSVs might be based.

These sources are NEV manufacturers

and the equipment regulations of the

City of Palm Desert for golf carts.

NHTSA received comments from two

NEV manufacturers, Bombardier and

Thomas. The Bombardier NEV will be

equipped with a safety glass

windshield, a lighting system designed

around automotive safety standards, a 3-

point belt system, horn, and mirror.

(003). According to Thomas, the Trans2

NEV is equipped with front and rear

turn signals, anchored 3-point belts, full

exterior lighting, a laminated safety

glass windshield, and windshield

wipers. (007). Thomas added that

NHTSA could add these features to a

25-mph requirement for classification

purposes.

The City of Palm Desert requires that

golf carts registered for use on the

public roads in its plan area be

equipped with head lamps, stop lamps,

taillamps, front and rear turn signal

lamps, mirrors (left and right side, or

left side and rearview, or a ‘‘multidirectional cross bar,’’ which is an

elongated interior mirror that reflects

the driving environment on both sides

of the vehicle), red reflex reflectors on

each side at the rear of the cart between

15 and 60 inches above the ground,

parking brake, horn, windshield, seat

belts, a golf cart locking device, and

‘‘safely equipped or properly loaded to

conform with CVC Section 24002.’’

(Attachment 4, 005, p. 5).

There appears, then, to be a consensus

among manufacturers of NEVs and the

City of Palm Desert, the leading local

regulator of golf carts, as to

requirements meeting the local need for

safety of small, slow-moving vehicles.

Given that there does not appear to be

any present need to apply the full range

of Federal motor vehicle safety

standards to LSVs at this time, and that

an equipment standard is already in

place which LSVs must meet if they are

to be operated on the public roads of at

least one jurisdiction, NHTSA has

tentatively concluded that the Palm

Desert standard affords a basis upon

which a reasonable, practicable, and

appropriate standard may be

promulgated on the Federal level as an

initial effort to address LSV safety.

The agency proposal differs from the

requirements of Palm Desert in the

following manner. The agency does not

require a horn on other motor vehicles,

so none is proposed for LSVs. NHTSA

understands that a ‘‘locking device’’

simply means that a golf cart cannot be

operated without a key to turn on the

power, and assumes that this will be the

way that LSVs will be manufactured.

NHTSA is not proposing to require

the use of a ‘‘multi-directional cross bar

mirror.’’ However, its proposed term,

‘‘interior mirror,’’ is broad enough to

accommodate its use. The ‘‘seat belts’’

would be specified to be either Type 1

or Type 2 conforming to Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard No. 209 ‘‘Seat Belt

Assemblies.’’ The agency requests

comments on the practicability of

requiring all LSVs including golf cars to

have Type 2 lap and shoulder belt

assemblies. The windshield would have

to be glazing marked ‘‘AS 1’’ by its

prime manufacturer.

NHTSA is proposing that these

requirements be placed in a new Federal

motor vehicle safety standard called

Standard No. 100 Low-speed vehicles. A

‘‘low-speed vehicle,’’ or LSV, would be

a motor vehicle, other than a

motorcycle, whose speed attainable in 1

mile does not exceed 25 mph (‘‘speed

attainable in 1 mile’’ is the expression

used in other Federal standards to

denote maximum speed). LSVs would

include, but not be limited to ‘‘golf cars’’

(defined as vehicles that are used to

convey golfers on golf courses and

whose speed attainable in 1 mile

exceeds 15 mph but does not exceed 25

mph.) LSVs would not include ‘‘golf

carts’’ (defined as vehicles that are used

to convey golfers on golf courses and

whose speed attainable in 1 mile is not

greater than 15 miles per hour.) This is

essentially the same definition the

industry uses in ANSI/NGCMA Z130.1–

1993 for golf car.

LSVs would not be required to meet

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

Nos. 101 through 304 and the bumper

standard. LSVs, other than LSVs with

work-performing equipment, would

have to be equipped with headlamps,

front and rear turn signal lamps,

taillamps, stop lamps, rear reflex

reflectors mounted on each side not less

than 15 inches and not more than 60

inches above the road surface, a driver’s

side exterior rear view mirror plus

either an interior rear view mirror or an

exterior mirror on the passenger side, a

windshield marked ‘‘AS 1’’, and Type 1

or Type 2 seat belt assemblies that

conform to Standard No. 209. Lighting

equipment would not need to meet

either the lighting standard, Standard

No. 108 or the rear view mirror

standard, Standard No. 111. Thus, the

performance characteristics of lamps,

reflectors, and mirrors would be left to

the manufacturer. The manufacturers’

certifications of compliance of LSVs as

required by 49 CFR Part 567 would

simply be an affirmation that the LSV

had been manufactured with the

equipment specified by Standard No.

100. Finally, NHTSA deems it advisable

that such LSVs also be equipped with a

label warning that it must not be

operated on the public roads at a speed

more than 25 mph. This is to ensure that

the operator of an LSV that may have

been modified so that its top speed

exceeds 25 mph would have a

permanent reminder that the vehicle

was not designed to be operated at

speeds greater than 25 mph.

LSVs with work-performing

equipment would not be subject to

Standard No. 100. Their workperforming nature makes it unlikely that

they would be used for on-road

transportation purposes in jurisdictions

like Palm Desert.

E. Modifying the Speed Capabilities of

LSVs

Since the advent of the Palm Desert

plan, NHTSA is aware that the speed

capability of some golf carts may have

been modified to exceed 15 mph, to take

advantage of the mobility offered by the

plan. Similarly, it may be possible to

modify LSVs, through removal of a

governor or otherwise, so that their

maximum speed exceeds 25 mph. If an

LSV in use were modified so that its

maximum speed exceeds 25 mph, it

would no longer be an LSV under the

definition. Further, operation at a speed

exceeding 25 mph would be in violation

of local traffic laws. Increasing the

speed of most LSVs would convert them

into passenger cars. However, they

would not conform to passenger car

standards and would not afford the

protection that NHTSA deems needed

for the public at speeds higher than 25

mph. As a result of the speed

modification, the equipment required by

Standard No. 100 would no longer

afford the anticipated level of

protection. Thus, speed modification

would, in a sense, make the vehicle’s

compliance with Standard No. 100

‘‘inoperative’’ within the meaning of 49

U.S.C. 30122 when an LSV is modified

to exceed 25 mph without being

conformed to Federal motor vehicle

safety standards applicable to its vehicle

type. This section prohibits a

manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or

motor vehicle repair business from

making inoperative any element of
1084 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules

design or device installed in accordance

with a Federal motor vehicle safety

standard.

If a golf cart in use were modified so

that its maximum speed exceeds 15

mph, it would become a ‘‘golf car’’ and

an LSV, if its speed did not exceed 25

mph, and it would become a ‘‘passenger

car,’’ if its speed exceeded 25 mph.

However, there would not be any

violation of section 30122 since the

making inoperative prohibition does not

apply either to a vehicle that was not a

motor vehicle as originally

manufactured or to a vehicle or motor

vehicle that was not subject to any

Federal safety standards as originally

manufactured. When operated on the

public roads, the modified golf cart

would have to comply with local

regulations which, in Palm Desert,

requires licensing and retrofitting with

the safety equipment required by the

City, essentially the same that is

required by Standard No. 100.

F. Effect on State and Local Registration

and Use Laws

Some commenters misunderstood the

limits of NHTSA’s regulatory authority

and NHTSA wishes to correct these

misimpressions.

Supervisor Wilson asked the agency

for its ‘‘approval in allowing

Neighborhood Electric Vehicles and

other slow-moving vehicles to operate

on public roadways * * *.’’ (011,

Transcript, Palm Desert meeting, p. 9).

NHTSA understands this to be a broad

request not to take any regulatory action

that would restrict or prohibit the public

from using LSVs. The agency has no

authority to ‘‘approve’’ or ‘‘allow’’ any

type of vehicle to operate on the public

roads. That is solely a function of local

government. However, imposition of

costly-to-meet regulations would have

the probable effect of curtailing future

production of LSVs and hence their

availability for the ends deemed

desirable by local regulatory authorities.

NHTSA’s initial regulatory effort for

LSVs would not affect the availability of

low-speed vehicles, and would not

affect the way they will be used in the

plan area.

Powell of EZGo asked NHTSA to

initiate steps to preempt all state and

local regulation of golf carts on the

public roads until a safety analysis can

be made of the safety issues and an

optimum response fashioned to them

(032). He also asked that NHTSA

mandate speed limits not to exceed 15

mph for golf carts used on public roads.

NHTSA has no legal authority to set

local speed limits or to prescribe

regulations governing the operation of

low-speed vehicles. NHTSA has

authority to set standards that apply to

vehicles from the time of manufacture to

the time of initial sale, but not

regulations that directly control how

they are operated on the public roads.

Gough of DMV Connecticut

commented that his state does not allow

registration of low-performance vehicles

of golf cart-like performance, and feared

that it would be forced to ‘‘allow general

use if the vehicles are sanctioned by

NHTSA.’’ (019). He urged the agency ‘‘to

require some form of state approval of

areas where such vehicles would be

allowed before any consideration of

approval or sanctioning is to be made.’’

As noted above, NHTSA does not have

authority to ‘‘approve’’ or ‘‘disapprove’’

the use of on-road vehicles in

designated areas. The question raised by

Gough in actuality is whether a state is

preempted from refusing to register a

motor vehicle for use on the public

roads if that vehicle has been certified

to comply with all applicable Federal

motor vehicle safety standards.

Gough has raised an important issue

concerning the extent of preemption

under the NHTSA’s statute. Under 49

U.S.C. 30103(b)(1), ‘‘When a motor

vehicle safety standard is in effect * * *

a State or a political subdivision of a

State may prescribe or continue in effect

a standard applicable to the same aspect

of performance of a motor vehicle or

motor vehicle equipment only if the

standard is identical to the standard

prescribed under this chapter.’’ The

agency has interpreted the preemption

clause as meaning that a State cannot

impose a heavier burden upon a vehicle

for purposes of registration where the

vehicle has been manufactured to meet

a Federal standard covering the same

aspect of performance. Thus, a State

could not require LSVs to be equipped

with mirrors conforming to Standard

No. 111 because that would not be

required by proposed Standard No. 100.

But a State could specify requirements

for braking system performance since

there is no similar requirement

proposed in Standard No. 100.

The legislative history of the

preemption clause is clear that it was

the purpose of the drafters that ‘‘[t]he

centralized, mass production, high

volume character of the motor vehicle

manufacturing industry * * * requires

that motor vehicle safety standards

* * * be uniform throughout the

country.’’ (S. Rpt. No. 1301, 89th Cong.

2d Sess. (1966), p. 12). The preemption

section ‘‘is intended to result in

uniformity of standards so that the

public as well as industry will be

guided by one set of criteria rather than

by a multiplicity of diverse standards.’’

(H. Rpt. No. 1776, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.

(1966), p. 17). With respect to Gough’s

concern, Connecticut simply does ‘‘not

allow registration of low performance

vehicles of golf-cart like performance.’’

The State is not seeking to establish or

maintain a standard different from

Standard No. 100. Connecticut has

issued no standard at all, and the

question of preemption does not arise.

By its action (or lack thereof),

Connecticut has imposed no additional

manufacturing burden upon

manufacturers of LSVs. NHTSA does

not attribute to the drafters of 49 U.S.C.

30103(b)(1) a Congressional intent to

force a State to accept and register a

class of vehicles where a State has

chosen not to do so, even if that class

of vehicles is certified as meeting all

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety

standards. It should be noted that

NHTSA has no authority to impose use

restrictions upon registered, certified

vehicles, so that even if Connecticut

were preempted and required to register

LSVs, the State could impose operating

restrictions that would significantly

limit their use on the public roads.

G. Costs to Conform to Standard No.

100

In its program monitoring report of

January 1994, Palm Desert included the

questionnaire that it had sent in

November 1993 to the 80 persons who

at that time had registered their golf

carts with the city. One of the questions

asked was the cost to modify golf carts

to meet City requirements. Sixty-one

responded to the questionnaire, and the

average cost was reported to be $150.

(Attachment 3, 005, p. 10).

However, two and one half years later,

at the Palm Desert hearing on July 18,

1996, Steve Pohle, a dealer in golf carts,

estimated that the cost to a golf cart

owner to retrofit the vehicle with the

equipment required by the City is

approximately $400, including ‘‘about

$115’’ for the windshield (011,

Transcript, p. 54). NHTSA anticipates

that manufacturers of LSVs (NEVs and

on-road golf carts) would be able to

achieve economies of scale so that their

direct costs would be substantially less

than $400 per vehicle. NHTSA requests

that commenters address the costs

associated with conforming to Standard

No. 100, and to explain the basis for

their estimates.

Request for Comments

Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on the proposal. It is

requested but not required that 10

copies be submitted.

All comments must not exceed 15

pages in length (49 CFR 553.21).

Necessary attachments may be
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules 1085

appended to these submissions without

regard to the 15-page limit. This

limitation is intended to encourage

commenters to detail their primary

arguments in a concise fashion.

If a commenter wishes to submit

certain information under a claim of

confidentiality, three copies of the

complete submission, including

purportedly confidential business

information, should be submitted to the

Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street

address given above, and seven copies

from which the purportedly confidential

information has been deleted should be

submitted to the Docket Section. A

request for confidentiality should be

accompanied by a cover letter setting for

the information specified in the

agency’s confidential business

information regulation, 49 CFR part 512.

All comments received before the

close of business on the comment

closing date indicated above for the

proposal will be considered, and will be

available for examination in the docket

at the above address both before and

after that date. To the extent possible,

comments filed after the closing date

will also be considered. Comments

received too later for consideration in

regard to the final rule will be

considered as suggestions for further

rulemaking action. Comments on the

proposal will be available to inspection

in the docket. NHTSA will continue to

file relevant information as it becomes

available in the docket after the closing

date and it is recommended that

interested persons continue to examine

the docket for new material.

Those persons desiring to be notified

upon receipt of their comments in the

rules docket should enclose a selfaddressed stamped postcard in the

envelope with their comments. Upon

receiving the comments, the docket

supervisor will return the postcard by

mail.

Effective Date

Because there is a standard already in

effect which manufacturers of LSVs

must meet if they wish to sell their

product in at least one regional market,

and because such manufacturers wish to

introduce LSVs at the earliest possible

time, it is hereby tentatively found that

an effective date earlier than 180 days

after issuance of a final rule would be

practicable and in the public interest.

Accordingly, proposed Standard No.

100 would be effective 45 days after

publication of the final rule in the

Federal Register.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This action has not been reviewed

under Executive Order 12866. It has

been determined that the rulemaking

action is not significant under

Department of Transportation regulatory

policies and procedures. Because LSVs

are a new type of motor vehicle for

which a national market does not yet

exist, it is not possible to determine a

yearly cost impact. There are at present

two types of vehicles that meet the

definition of LSV: NEVs and golf cars.

Because they are distinctly different—

NEVs are purpose built for on road use

and can be operated on golf courses,

while golf cars are simply golf carts with

equipment added for on road use—no

manufacturer known to NHTSA

produces both NEVs and golf cars. As

discussed previously in this document,

both the Bombardier NEV and Trans2

NEV will be manufactured with

essentially all items of equipment

required by the City of Palm Desert for

on-road operation (see comments 003

and 007), so that the only additional

cost likely to be incurred in complying

with proposed Standard No. 100 are the

minor ones of the warning label, and the

manufacturer’s label certifying

compliance. Given the golf cart

industry’s position that it does not

intend its vehicles to be operated off

golf courses, the industry may choose to

limit the speed of all its production of

golf carts to a maximum of 15 mph

rather than incur the costs of complying

golf cars with Standard No. 100 through

add-ons to existing designs for a limited

percentage of its production. Until new

designs are developed, add-ons to golf

cars during manufacture will be in the

nature of retrofits. Information

presented at the California public

meeting indicated that the average cost

of 61 respondent owners to retrofit a

golf cart with the prescribed equipment

was an average of $150 in January 1994,

and could be as high as $400 in July

1996. However, the cost to a

manufacturer who buys this equipment

in quantity and adds it to a NEV or golf

car during the original manufacturing

process is likely to be much lower. So

that NHTSA might better assess the cost

impact of this rulemaking action, the

agency invites manufacturers to submit

data and market estimates, if need be on

a confidential basis, so that it may have

a more accurate idea of costs when the

final rule is issued.

NHTSA is preparing a regulatory

evaluation for placement in the docket

concurrent with, or shortly after

publication of, this document.

National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking

action for the purposes of the National

Environmental Policy Act. It is not

anticipated that a final rule based on

this proposal would have a significant

effect upon the environment.

Information presented to NHTSA

indicated that any increase in the

production of LSVs is likely to be

largely in those powered by electricity.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The agency has also considered the

impacts of this rulemaking action in

relation to the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. Sec. 601 et seq). I certify that

this rulemaking action would not have

a significant economic impact upon a

substantial number of small entities.

The following is NHTSA’s statement

providing the factual basis for the

certification (5 U.S.C. Sec. 605(b)). The

proposed amendment would primarily

affect manufacturers of nonconventional motor vehicles not

heretofore regulated by NHTSA. Under

15 U.S.C. Chapter 14A ‘‘Aid to Small

Businesses’’, a small business concern is

‘‘one which is independently owned

and operated and which is not

dominant in its field of operation’’ (15

U.S.C. Sec. 632). The Small Business

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13

CFR Part 121 define a small business, in

part, as a business entity ‘‘which

operates primarily within the United

States.’’ NHTSA believes that there is at

present only one entity that has been

manufacturing LSVs as defined by the

proposed rule, and that therefore it is

‘‘dominant in its field of operation.’’ A

second entity that intends to

manufacture LSVs in the near future

operates primarily outside the United

States. Golf cart manufacturers can

avoid being classified as manufacturers

of LSVs by ensuring that the maximum

speed of their vehicles does not exceed

15 m.p.h.

Further, small organizations and

governmental jurisdictions would not be

significantly affected as the purchasers

of LSVs are anticipated to be private

individuals who want a small,

alternative mode of transportation

instead of a conventional motor vehicle,

as a second vehicle for use in their

immediate residential area.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

This rulemaking action has also been

analyzed in accordance with the

principles and criteria contained in

Executive Order 12612, and NHTSA has

determined that this rulemaking action

does not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.
1086 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Civil Justice

A final rule based on this proposal

would not have any retroactive effect.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever a

Federal motor vehicle safety standard is

in effect, a state may not adopt or

maintain a safety standard applicable to

the same aspect of performance which

is not identical to the Federal standard.

Section 30163 sets forth a procedure for

judicial review of final rules

establishing, amending, or revoking

Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

That section does not require

submission of a petition for

reconsideration or other administrative

proceedings before parties may file suit

in court.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor

vehicles.

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

In consideration of the foregoing, 49

CFR part 571 would be amended as

follows:

The authority citation for part 571

would continue to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,

30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

2. A new § 571.100 would be added

to subpart B to read as set forth below:

§ 571.100 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

No. 100 Low-speed vehicles.

S1. Scope. This standard specifies

requirements for low-speed vehicles.

S2. Purpose. The purpose of this

standard is to ensure that low-speed

vehicles operated on the public streets,

roads, and highways are furnished with

the minimum motor vehicle equipment

necessary for motor vehicle safety.

S3. Applicability. This standard

applies to low-speed vehicles. This

standard does not apply to golf carts.

S4. Definitions.

Golf car means a motor vehicle,

whose speed attainable in 1 mile

exceeds 15 mph but does not exceed 25

mph, used to convey one or more

persons and equipment to play the game

of golf in an area designated as a golf

course.

Golf cart means a vehicle, whose

speed attainable in 1 mile does not

exceed 15 mph, used to convey one or

more persons and equipment to play the

game of golf in an area designated as a

golf course.

Low-speed vehicle means a motor

vehicle, other than a motorcycle, whose

speed attainable in 1 mile does not

exceed 25 mph. With respect to vehicles

used to convey golfers on golf courses,

it excludes golf carts, but includes golf

cars. Any motor vehicle that meets this

definition is excluded from the classes

of vehicles defined in § 571.3 of this

subpart, and is not a ‘‘passenger motor

vehicle’’ for the purposes of Part 581 of

this Chapter.

S5. Requirements.

(a) A low-speed vehicle, other than a

low-speed vehicle with work

performing features, shall be equipped

with:

(1) Headlamps,

(2) Front and rear turn signal lamps,

(3) Taillamps,

(4) Stop lamps,

(5) One red reflex reflector on each

side as far to the rear as practicable and

located not less than 15 inches nor more

than 60 inches above the road surface,

(6) An exterior mirror mounted on the

driver’s side of the vehicle and either an

exterior mirror mounted on the

passenger’s side of the vehicle or an

interior mirror,

(7) A parking brake,

(8) A windshield marked ‘‘AS 1’’ by

its prime glazing material manufacturer,

and

(9) A Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt

assembly conforming to Sec. 571.209

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209,

Seat belt assemblies, installed at each

designated seating position.

(b) Each vehicle to which paragraph

(a) of this S.5 applies shall bear a label

permanently affixed, visible to the

operator when seated, which reads

‘‘WARNING: This vehicle must not be

operated on the public roads at a speed

more than 25 mph.’’

Issued: January 3, 1997.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 97–386 Filed 1–3–97; 2:19 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P