33194 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 116/Wednesday, June 17, 1998/Rules and Regulations

1While many members of the general public use

the term ‘‘golf cart,’’ the manufacturers of those

vehicles use the term ‘‘golf car.’’ This final rule uses

‘‘golf car,’’ except in those instances in which the

other term is used in a quotation.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA 98–3949]

RIN 2127–AG58

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule responds to a

growing public interest in using golf

cars 1 and other similar-sized, 4-wheeled

vehicles to make short trips for

shopping, social and recreational

purposes primarily within retirement or

other planned communities with golf

courses. These passenger-carrying

vehicles, although low-speed, offer a

variety of advantages, including

comparatively low-cost and energyefficient mobility. Further, many of

these vehicles are electric-powered. The

use of these vehicles, instead of larger,

gasoline-powered vehicles like

passenger cars, provides quieter

transportation that does not pollute the

air of the communities in which they

are operated.

Currently, there is a growing conflict

between state and local laws, on the one

hand, and Federal law, on the other, in

the treatment of these small vehicles.

That conflict unnecessarily restricts the

ability of vehicle manufacturers to

produce and sell, and the ability of

consumers to purchase, these vehicles.

In recent years, a growing number of

states from California to Florida have

passed legislation authorizing their local

jurisdictions to permit general on-road

use of ‘‘golf carts,’’ subject to speed and/

or operational limitations. A majority of

those states condition such broad use

upon the vehicles’ having specified

safety equipment. Further, some of these

states have opened the way for the use

of vehicles that are faster than almost all

golf cars. Most conventional golf cars, as

originally manufactured, have a top

speed of less than 15 miles per hour.

These states have either redefined ‘‘golf

carts’’ to include vehicles designed to

achieve up to 25 miles per hour or have

established a new class of vehicles,

‘‘neighborhood electric vehicles,’’ also

defined as capable of achieving 25 miles

per hour.

Under current NHTSA interpretations

and regulations, so long as golf cars and

other similar vehicles are incapable of

exceeding 20 miles per hour, they are

subject to only state and local

requirements regarding safety

equipment. However, if these vehicles

are originally manufactured so that they

can go faster than 20 miles per hour,

they are treated as motor vehicles under

Federal law. Similarly, if golf cars are

modified after original manufacture so

that they can achieve 20 or more miles

per hour, they too are treated as motor

vehicles. Further, as motor vehicles,

they are currently classified as

passenger cars and must comply with

the Federal motor vehicle safety

standards for that vehicle type. This

creates a conflict with the state and

local laws because compliance with the

full range of those standards is not

feasible for these small vehicles.

To resolve this conflict, and to permit

the manufacture and sale of small, 4-

wheeled motor vehicles with top speeds

of 20 to 25 miles per hour, this final rule

reclassifies these small passengercarrying vehicles. Instead of being

classified as passenger cars, they are

now being classified as ‘‘low-speed

vehicles.’’ Since conventional golf cars,

as presently manufactured, have a top

speed of less than 20 miles per hour,

they are not included in that

classification.

As low-speed vehicles, these 20 to 25

mile-per-hour vehicles are subject to a

new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard No. 500 (49 CFR 571.500)

established by this final rule. The

agency notes that the growing on-road

use of golf cars has already resulted in

some deaths and serious injuries, and

believes that the new standard is needed

to address the effects in crashes of the

higher speed of low-speed vehicles. The

standard requires low-speed vehicles to

be equipped with headlamps, stop

lamps, turn signal lamps, taillamps,

reflex reflectors, parking brakes,

rearview mirrors, windshields, seat

belts, and vehicle identification

numbers. The agency believes that these

requirements appropriately address the

safety of low-speed vehicle occupants

and other roadway users, given the sub25 mph speed capability of these

vehicles and the controlled

environments in which they operate.

This rulemaking proceeding was

initiated in response to a request by

Bombardier, Inc., that the agency make

regulatory changes to permit the

introduction of a new class of 4-

wheeled, passenger-carrying vehicle

that is small, relatively slow-moving,

and low-cost.

DATES: The final rule is effective June

17, 1998. Petitions for reconsideration

must be filed not later than August 3,

1998.

Incorporation by reference of the

materials listed in this document is

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register and is effective upon

publication in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration

should refer to the Docket number and

be submitted to Docket Management,

PL–401, 400 7th Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For technical issues: Stephen R.

Kratzke, Office of Crash Avoidance

Standards, NHTSA, Room 5307, 400 7th

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590

(telephone 202–366–4931; fax 202–366–

4329).

For legal issues: Taylor Vinson, Office

of Chief Counsel, NHTSA, Room 5219,

400 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC

20590 (telephone 202–366–5263; fax

202–366–3820).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Glossary

II. Executive Summary

A. The Final Rule

B. Comparison of Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking and Final Rule

III. Background

A. Introduction; Sub-25 MPH Vehicles and

the Traditional Interpretation of ‘‘Motor

Vehicles’’

B. 1996 Request for Regulatory Relief

C. Pre-Rulemaking Study and 1996 Public

Meetings

D. Regulatory Options Considered

E. 1997 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

F. Summary of Comments on Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking

1. State and Local Officials; Utilities

2. Manufacturers and Dealers of Golf Cars

and Neighborhood Electric Vehicles

3. Advocacy Organizations

4. Other Commenters

G. Post-Comment Period Comments and

Information

1. Manufacturers and Dealers of Golf Cars;

Members of Congress

2. Other Sources

IV. Final Rule and Resolution of Key Issues

A. Summary

B. Authority and Safety Need for this Final

Rule

1. Low-Speed Vehicles are Motor Vehicles

a. Speed-modified Golf Cars Are Motor

Vehicles

b. Neighborhood Electric Vehicles Are

Motor Vehicles

2. The Agency Has Authority to Regulate

Anticipated as well as Current Safety

Problems

3. Issuance of this Rule Appropriately

Addresses an Anticipated Safety

Problem

a. Crash Data Show a Limited Safety

Problem Involving the On-road Use of

Fleet and Personal Golf Cars
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 116/Wednesday, June 17, 1998/Rules and Regulations 33195

2Some of the better known and most frequentlyreported on examples of golf car communities are

the City of Palm Desert, California, Sun City and

Sun City West, Arizona, Peachtree City, Georgia

(golf car operation there is restricted to dedicated

paths), and Sun City Center and The Villages of

Lady Lake, Florida.

3State laws regarding the on-road use of golf cars

appear to have gradually evolved in the last 15–20

years, particularly in the last 5 years, so as to

expand the extent to which golf cars can be used

on public roads. Several distinct stages of evolution

are discernible:

• permitting golf car operators to cross public

roads cutting through golf course;

• permitting golf cars to be used on roads in

vicinity of golf course to make trips to and from golf

course within golf community;

• permitting golf car use on roads designated by

local governments; and

• permitting use of NEVs and golf cars with top

speed of up to 25 miles per hour.

Some states have progressed through several

stages in sequence, while others have apparently

skipped the first several stages and begun with one

of the latter stages.

4Twelve states have a law permitting all-purpose

trips with potentially broad areas: Arizona,

California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois

(awaiting governor’s signature), Iowa, Minnesota,

Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and Wyoming. One

state has a law permitting all-purpose trips within

vicinity of a person’s residence: South Carolina.

Three states have a law permitting trips to and from

golf course: Arkansas, Oregon and Wisconsin.

b. The States Have Adopted Laws

Requiring Safety Equipment on Fleet and

Personal Golf Cars Used on Public Roads

c. There is a Similar, But Greater

Anticipated Safety Problem Involving

Low-Speed Vehicles

d. This Rule Requires Safety Equipment on

Low Speed Vehicles Consistent with

Their Characteristics and Operating

Environment

4. The Agency Has Appropriately

Considered the Experience of Foreign

Small Vehicles

C. Safety Engineering Issues

1. Speed Range of Motor Vehicles Subject

to this Standard

a. Minimum Threshold of 20 Miles per

Hour

b. Upper Limit of 25 Miles per Hour

2. Seat Belts

3. Windshields

4. VINs, Horn, and Warning Label

5. Other Areas of Safety Performance;

Future Considerations

D. Compliance with Other Statutory

Requirements Relating to Safety and

With Federal Statutes Regulating NonSafety Aspects of Motor Vehicles

1. Other Statutory Requirements Relating

to Safety

2. Federal Statutes Regulating Non-Safety

Aspects of Motor Vehicles

a. Theft

b. Content Labeling

c. Corporate Average Fuel Economy

d. Bumper Standards

V. Effective Date

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Regulatory Text

I. Glossary

Since some of the groups of vehicles

discussed in this final rule may be

unfamiliar to many readers, the agency

has listed and defined them below. In

addition, it has shown their relationship

to each other in the graph following the

list.

‘‘Sub-25 mph vehicle’’ means any 4-

wheeled vehicle whose top speed is not

greater than 25 miles per hour. This

group includes all of the vehicles in the

other groups below, except those speedmodified golf cars whose top speed is

greater than 25 miles per hour.

‘‘Conventional golf car’’ means either

a fleet golf car or a personal golf car.

(A) ‘‘Fleet golf car’’ means a golf car

used solely to carry one or more people

and golf equipment to play golf. These

are sold to golf courses.

(B) ‘‘Personal golf car’’ means a golf

car used to carry one or more people

and may carry golf equipment to play

golf. These are sold to individual people

who may use them to travel on public

roads to and from golf courses and to

play golf, to travel on public roads on

purposes unrelated to golf, or for all of

these purposes.

‘‘Speed-modified golf car’’ means a

conventional golf car that was modified,

after its original manufacture, so as to

increase its speed. While some speedmodified golf cars have a top speed of

20 to 25 miles per hour, others have a

higher top speed. That modification

may currently be accompanied by the

addition of safety equipment required

for the on-road use of the golf car.

‘‘Neighborhood electric vehicle’’

means any 4-wheeled electric vehicle

whose top speed is not greater than 25

miles per hour. Some of these vehicles

look more like a passenger car than a

conventional golf car.

‘‘Low-speed vehicle’’ means any 4-

wheeled motor vehicle whose top speed

is greater than 20 miles per hour, but

not greater than 25 miles per hour. This

group includes neighborhood electric

vehicles, and speed-modified golf cars,

whose top speed is greater than 20 miles

per hour, but not greater than 25 miles

per hour.

II. Executive Summary

A. The Final Rule

Since 1966, NHTSA has been directed

by the National Traffic and Motor

Vehicle Safety Act (‘‘Vehicle Safety

Act’’) (now codified as 49 U.S.C.

Chapter 301) to issue Federal motor

vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for

motor vehicles and to ensure that those

standards are appropriate for each class

of motor vehicle to which they apply. 49

U.S.C. 30111(a) and (b)(3). As the

vehicles within a class evolve in design

or use or as the size of a class changes

substantially relative to the sizes of

other classes, the standards applicable

to that class typically must evolve to

keep pace with changing safety needs

and priorities. For example, the

substantial increase in the number of

passenger vans and other types of light

trucks and multipurpose passenger

vehicles (and the increase in the

personal use of these vehicles) in the

1980’s led the agency to extend the

requirements for passenger cars to those

classes of vehicles. More recently, the

increasing size and prevalence of sport

utility vehicles has led the agency to

examine the compatibility of those

vehicles and smaller vehicles and

review the standards applicable to those

vehicles. Similarly, the appearance of

new vehicles, such as electric vehicles

and compressed natural gas vehicles,

has made it necessary for the agency to

issue new requirements tailored to the

particular anticipated safety issues

associated with those vehicles.

This rulemaking involves another

instance in which the agency is called

upon to adjust its standards to reflect

changes in the vehicle population.

Transportation needs are changing as

the number of retirement and other

planned communities grow. These

communities are particularly numerous

in the southern tier or Sunbelt states

such as California, Arizona, and

Florida. 2 Many residents within these

communities do not need or want a

conventional motor vehicle like a

passenger car to make short trips to visit

friends, to run errands, or, if they are

golfers, to go to the golf course. They

prefer to use a smaller, 4-wheeled

vehicle with limited-speed capability,

such as a golf car, that is less costly and,

if electric, emission free.

For years, a common practice among

those relatively few states then

permitting on-road use of golf cars was

to allow such use only within a

specified distance (generally ranging

from 1⁄2 mile to 2 miles) from a golf

course. ‘‘Golf carts’’ were defined by

several of the states as having a top

speed of 15 miles per hour or less.

In recent years, however, a growing

number of states from California to

Florida have passed legislation

eliminating or establishing exceptions to

the requirement that the on-road use of

golf cars be in the vicinity of a golf

course and authorizing their local

jurisdictions to permit general on-road

use of ‘‘golf carts,’’ subject to speed and/

or operational limitations.3 Nine of the

12 states now authorizing general onroad use condition such broader use

upon the golf cars’ meeting

requirements for safety equipment. In

all, 16 states 4 now have laws

authorizing their local governments to
33196 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 116/Wednesday, June 17, 1998/Rules and Regulations

5For the purpose of statutory provisions relating

to golf car transportation plans, California defines

a ‘‘golf cart’’ as ‘‘a motor vehicle having not less

than three wheels in contact with the ground,

having an unladen weight less than 1,300 pounds,

which is designed to be and is operated at not more

than 25 miles per hour and designed to carry golf

equipment and not more than two persons,

including the driver.’’ California Streets &

Highways Code § 1951. (For all other purposes,

California Vehicle Code § 345 continues to define

‘‘golf carts’’ as ‘‘a motor vehicle . . . . which is

designed to be and is operated at not more than 15

miles per hour . . .’’) Arizona has a definition

similar to § 1951, except that it specifies an unladen

weight of less than 1,800 pounds and a capability

of carrying not more than four persons, including

the driver. A.R.S. § 28–101(22).

6Arizona defines a ‘‘neighborhood electric

vehicle’’ as an emission free motor vehicle with at

least 4 wheels in contact with the ground and an

unladen vehicle weight of less than 1,800 pounds

that is designed to be and is operated at no more

than 25 mph and is designed to carry no more than

four persons. A.R.S. § 28–101(32). Colorado has a

similar term and definition. C.R.S 42–1–102 (60.5).

7This action is analogous to the agency’s decision

in 1968 to regulate small, low-powered motorcycles

differently than larger, higher-powered motorcycles.

To implement this decision, the agency established

a subclass of motorcycles called ‘‘motor-driven

cycles.’’ NHTSA then determined which of the

requirements in the safety standards for the larger,

higher-powered motorcycles would be appropriate

for application to motor-driven cycles. The agency

excluded motor-driven cycles from some

requirements, while making them subject to other

requirements. By means of this tailoring, the agency

effectively balanced its responsibilities to assure

that its standards:

• protect the public from unreasonable risk, and

• are practicable and appropriate for the

particular vehicle type.

8Manufacturers of custom golf cars, dealers and

other commercial entities that modify golf cars, and

manufacturers of NEVs may wish to obtain a copy

of NHTSA regulations (in Title 49 Code of Federal

Regulations Parts 400–999 revised as of October 1,

1997, available from a U.S. Government Bookstore).

Among other things, these parties will need to

obtain a VIN identifier from the Society of

Automotive Engineers, as specified in Part 565.

They will also have to prepare and affix

certification labels in accordance with Part 567

when their low-speed vehicles have been

conformed and are ready for sale. Finally, they must

file an identification statement that meets the

requirements of Part 566 not later than 30 days after

beginning manufacture of a low-speed vehicle.

permit golf cars either to be used

generally on public streets designated

by local governments (12 states) or

within the vicinity of golf courses or a

person’s residence (4 states).

Further, three states have changed

their laws to reflect the existence of sub25 mph vehicles that are faster than

almost all golf cars. They have either

replaced an old statutory provision

defining ‘‘golf carts’’ as having a top

speed up to 15 miles per hour with a

new one defining them as having a top

speed up to 25 miles per hour 5 or have

added a new class of vehicles,

‘‘neighborhood electric vehicles,’’ also

capable of achieving 25 miles per hour.6

In addition to meeting a

transportation need of these

communities, sub-25 mph vehicles also

help them meet some of their

environmental goals. These vehicles are

energy-efficient. Further, many of them

are battery-powered, and thus emission

free and quiet. To the extent that

emission-free vehicles replace

conventional vehicles powered by

internal combustion engines, they help

state and local officials in meeting

ambient air quality standards under the

Clean Air Act. For example, the City of

Palm Desert, California, estimates that it

has achieved an emissions reduction of

16 tons of carbon monoxide annually

since implementing its program

allowing golf cars to use the public

streets. Further, as noted by the

Economic Development Department of

Arizona Public Service, the state’s

largest utility company, the use of

electric vehicles also produces

reductions in emissions of

hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxide, and

carbon dioxide.

There is currently a Federal regulatory

barrier to the manufacture and sale of a

segment of the sub-25 mph vehicle

group. Under longstanding agency

interpretations, vehicles used on public

roads are regarded by this agency as

‘‘motor vehicles’’ within the meaning of

the Vehicle Safety Act if they have a top

speed greater than 20 miles per hour. If

sub-25 mph passenger-carrying vehicles

have a top speed exceeding 20 miles per

hour, they are classified in the same

manner as much faster and larger motor

vehicles (i.e., as passenger cars).

Further, they are subject to the same

FMVSSs developed to meet the

particular safety needs of passenger

cars. Since the application of these

FMVSSs to these sub-25 mph passengercarrying vehicles would necessitate the

addition of a considerable amount of

structure, weight and cost, such

application appears to preclude their

production and sale. In addition, given

the limited-speed capability and

relatively controlled operating

environments of these vehicles, it does

not currently appear necessary from a

safety standpoint to design them to meet

the full range of passenger car FMVSSs,

especially those incorporating dynamic

crash requirements.

This rulemaking eliminates the

conflict between the state and local

laws, on the one hand, and the Federal

requirements, on the other, by removing

these sub-25 mph vehicles with a top

speed range of 20 to 25 miles per hour

from the passenger car class of motor

vehicles and placing them in a new

class subject to its own set of safety

requirements.7 As noted above in the

summary section, the new class is called

low-speed vehicles (LSV). LSVs include

any 4-wheeled vehicle, other than a

truck, with a maximum speed greater

than 20 miles per hour, but not greater

than 25 miles per hour.

There are currently two types of

vehicles that will qualify as LSVs. One

type is the golf car. All conventional

golf cars, as now originally

manufactured, have a top speed of less

than 20 miles per hour, and thus, do not

meet the speed capability threshold for

LSVs. However, some conventional golf

cars are modified so as to go more than

20 miles per hour. Those speedmodified golf cars whose top speed is

between 20 and 25 miles per hour

qualify as LSVs. Similarly, there is a

very small number of originally

manufactured custom golf cars that are

not modified conventional golf cars and

that have a top speed above 20 miles per

hour. Some of them look very much like

passenger cars. Those custom golf cars

with a top speed between 20 and 25

miles per hour qualify as LSVs.

The other vehicles that will qualify as

an LSV are so-called ‘‘Neighborhood

Electric Vehicles’’ or ‘‘NEVs.’’ Current

NEVs are bigger and heavier, and have

more superstructure than golf cars.

Further, as originally manufactured,

current NEVs have top speeds of 25

miles per hour. However, like golf cars,

they do not have doors, and thus have

neither heating systems nor air

conditioners.

LSVs will be subject to a new FMVSS,

Standard No. 500, Low-Speed Vehicles,

established by this final rule. This

standard is being issued in recognition

of the fact that the growing on-road use

of golf cars has already resulted in some

deaths and serious injuries. The agency

has information indicating that there

were 16 deaths of golf car occupants on

the public roads from 1993 to 1997. The

standard’s requirements are based

primarily upon a regulation that the City

of Palm Desert, California, established

in 1993 for golf car owners seeking to

register their golf cars for use on the

city’s streets. The new FMVSS requires

LSVs to be equipped with basic items of

safety equipment: headlamps, stop

lamps, turn signal lamps, taillamps,

reflex reflectors, parking brake,

windshields of either type AS–1 or type

AS–5 glazing, rearview mirrors, seat

belts and vehicle identification numbers

(VINs).

In view of the uncertainty among

commenters about compliance

responsibilities under Standard No. 500,

the agency wants to clarify the

responsibilities of each group of

interested parties.8

• Manufacturers of conventional golf

cars. Golf car manufacturers have no
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 116/Wednesday, June 17, 1998/Rules and Regulations 33197

9Those types of glazing are defined in the

American National Standard Institute’s ‘‘Safety

Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor

Vehicles Operating on Land Highways’’ Z26.1–

1977, January 26, 1977, as ssupplemented by

Z26.1a, July 3, 1980.

10ANSI/NGCMA Z130.1–1993, ‘‘American

National Standard for Golf Cars—Safety and

Performance Requirements.’’

11NGCMA represents the original equipment

manufacturers of 95 percent of all golf cars

manufactured and distributed in the United States.

Its four largest members, in terms of golf car

production, are E–Z–GO, Club Car, Yamaha, and

Melex.

12The golf car industry indicated at NHTSA’s July

25, 1996 public meeting that its members adhere to

the standard ‘‘100 percent.’’

13The agency noted that there was one model of

golf car whose top speed, as originally

manufactured, reportedly exceeded 15 miles per

hour. No information relating to the production

volume of that model was available at that time.

14NGCMA confirmed that E–Z–GO, Yamaha, and

Melex do not produce any golf cars whose top

speed exceeds 15 miles per hour.

compliance responsibilities so long as

they continue their current practice of

limiting the top speed of their golf cars,

as originally manufactured, to less than

20 miles per hour.

• Manufacturers of custom golf cars.

Manufacturers of custom golf cars are

subject to Standard No. 500 if the top

speed of their vehicles is between 20

and 25 miles per hour and to the

FMVSSs for passenger cars if their top

speed is above 25 miles per hour.

• Dealers and other commercial

entities that modify golf cars. If dealers

and other commercial entities modify

conventional golf cars so that their top

speed is increased to between 20 and 25

miles per hour, those dealers and

entities must conform the modified golf

cars to Standard No. 500 and certify

their compliance with that standard.

This requirement covers all golf cars

modified on or after the effective date of

Standard No. 500, regardless of when

the golf car was originally

manufactured.

• Manufacturers of NEVs. Any

manufacturer of a NEV whose top speed

is between 20 and 25 miles per hour

must ensure that the vehicle complies

with Standard No. 500 and certify its

compliance with that standard. This

requirement covers all new NEVs

manufactured on or after the effective

date of Standard No. 500.

In response to concerns expressed by

several commenters, NHTSA wishes to

address several matters concerning the

effect that issuing Standard No. 500 has

on state and local laws. First, as noted

in the NPRM, this final rule does not

alter the ability of states and local

governments to decide for themselves

whether to permit on-road use of golf

cars and LSVs.

Second, state and local governments

may supplement Standard No. 500 in

some respects. They may do so by

requiring the installation of and regulate

the performance of safety equipment not

required by the standard. However, the

states and local governments may not

specify performance requirements for

the safety equipment that is required by

the standard. The agency tentatively

decided in the NPRM that LSV

manufacturers need not comply with

requirements regulating the

performance of any items of equipment

(except seat belts) required by the

standard. Seat belts are required to meet

Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies.

The agency is making that decision final

in this rule.

Third, the agency notes that the

issuance of Standard No. 500 does not

require current owners of speedmodified golf cars having a top speed

between 20 to 25 miles per hour to

retrofit them with the equipment

specified in the standard. The decision

whether to require retrofitting of golf

cars that are already on the road remains

in the domain of state and local law.

B. Comparison of Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking and Final Rule

NHTSA proposed that the low-speed

vehicle standard be designated Standard

No. 100. However, since the standard

contains both crash avoidance and

crashworthiness requirements, NHTSA

has decided to adopt a number for the

new standard that is outside both the

100 series of standards and the 200

series of standards. The new standard

will be known as Standard No. 500,

Low-speed vehicles, 49 CFR 571.500.

This final rule adopts, in most other

respects, the standard as it appeared in

the agency’s January 8, 1997 notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (62 FR

1077). It requires all the proposed safety

equipment, except the warning label,

and, as requested by some commenters,

adds a requirement for a VIN. In

response to comments regarding the

need for requiring means of enhancing

rear conspicuity beyond that provided

by the proposed taillamps and stop

lamps, the agency has added a

requirement for a rear reflex reflector to

help following drivers detect the

presence of a parked or stopped LSV at

night. In response to a request of the

National Golf Car Manufacturers

Association (NGCMA) that

manufacturers be allowed to install

polycarbonate windshields, the final

rule permits a choice between either

AS–5 polycarbonate glazing or AS–1

safety glass for LSV windshields.9 In

addition, to provide a means for

determining whether a vehicle’s speed

qualifies it as a LSV, the agency has

added a test procedure for determining

maximum vehicle speed. The procedure

is based largely on the maximum speed

test procedure in the industry standard

for golf cars, 10 and on provisions in

American Society for Testing and

Materials standards regarding

determination of pavement friction.

The final rule differs from the

proposal in one other important respect.

The standard has been amended so that

it applies to a narrower population of

vehicles. Before the issuance of the

proposal, NGCMA represented that: (1)

Its members 11 do not manufacture any

golf cars for use on the public roads; (2)

the industry standard for all golf cars

used exclusively on golf courses

specifies a maximum speed of 15 miles

per hour; and (3) its members fully meet

the industry standard.12 Also, at a

public meeting held by the agency on

July 25, 1996, NGCMA asked the agency

to mandate speed limits not to exceed

15 miles per hour for golf cars on public

roads.

Based on this information and request

from NGCMA, it appeared to NHTSA

that 15 miles per hour was the

appropriate dividing line not only

between golf cars manufactured for golf

course use and those manufactured for

both on-road use and golf course use,

but also between conventional golf cars

and speed-modified golf cars.13 The

agency tentatively concluded that if a

golf car manufacturer produced golf cars

with a top speed capability above the

industry standard, i.e., above 15 miles

per hour, that the ‘‘manufacturer must

intend its vehicles to be used on public

roads as well as one golf courses.’’ (62

FR 1082) Accordingly, the agency

drafted the proposal to cover vehicles

with a maximum speed capability

greater than 15 miles per hour, but not

greater than 25 miles per hour. Based on

what it had been told by NGCMA, the

agency believed that its proposal would

affect virtually no conventional golf

cars, as originally manufactured.

Since the NPRM, NHTSA has

obtained new information from

NGCMA. In response to a May 1998

inquiry by the agency, NGCMA said that

1 percent of Club Car’s fleet golf cars,

and 75 percent of its personal golf cars,

have a top speed between 15 and 20

miles per hour.14 Thus, contrary to the

agency’s expectation, the proposal

would have applied to a significant

minority of Club Car’s golf cars.

Based on this new information, the

agency has decided to limit the

application of Standard No. 500 to

vehicles whose top speed is between 20

and 25 miles per hour. This decision
33198 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 116/Wednesday, June 17, 1998/Rules and Regulations

15The potential crash energy of a vehicle

increases at a greater rate than increases in the

vehicle’s speed. This is because an object’s

acceleration (or deceleration) equals the mass of the

object times the velocity squared.

carries out the agency’s original

intention of excluding virtually all

conventional golf cars, as originally

manufactured, from the standard.

The agency also believes that 20 miles

per hour is a better dividing line

between vehicles designed for use on

the golf course and vehicles designed

for on-road use. The conventional golf

cars with a top speed between 15 and

20 miles per hour have a body and

understructure very similar to that of

conventional golf cars with a top speed

less than 15 miles per hour. Further,

while the speed differential between

those two groups of golf cars creates a

significant difference in their potential

crash energy, the energy in the 15 to 20

mile-per-hour range is still modest

compared to that of LSVs.15 According

to NGCMA, golf cars with a top speed

of less than 15 miles per hour typically

have a top speed of about 12 miles per

hour. Those with a top speed between

15 and 20 miles per hour are believed

by the agency to have a top speed of

approximately 17 to 18 miles per hour.

The practical safety effects of raising

the speed threshold do not appear to be

extensive. Data obtained since the

NPRM regarding the limited number of

fatalities associated with on-road use of

conventional golf cars indicate that the

state and local governments are

adequately providing for the safety of

on-road users of those golf cars.

However, NHTSA concludes that

Federal action is needed to address the

safety problems that the agency

anticipates will be associated with

vehicles whose top speed is between 20

and 25 miles per hour. The speed

differential between those vehicles and

the great bulk of golf cars whose top

speed is less than 15 miles per hour is

as much as 12 miles per hour, while the

speed differential between golf cars

whose top speed is between 15 and 20

miles per hour and slower golf cars is

about half that, i.e., 5–6 miles per hour.

The crash forces that 20 to 25 mile-perhour vehicles will experience are

significantly greater than those for 15 to

20 mile-per-hour golf cars and much

greater than those for sub-15 mile-perhour golf cars. Those greater forces

make it necessary to require that LSVs

be equipped with more safety features

than the states and their local

jurisdictions currently require for

conventional golf cars used on-road.

Most important, it makes it necessary to

require seats belts. Seat belts can

prevent LSV occupants from falling out

during abrupt maneuvers and prevent or

reduce their ejection during crashes.

Finally, vehicles with ‘‘work

performing equipment’’ (i.e., certain

trucks) would have been LSVs under the

proposal, although not required to meet

Standard No. 500. Under the final rule,

these vehicles are no longer included

LSVs and must continue to meet truck

FMVSSs. This change is consistent with

the rationale of this rulemaking, which

is to eliminate a regulatory conflict

involving passenger-carrying vehicles.

Further, NHTSA concludes that the

truck FMVSSs remain appropriate for

trucks with a speed capability between

20 and 25 miles per hour and that these

standards have not inhibited their

introduction in the past.

III. Background

A. Introduction; Sub–25 MPH Vehicles

and the Traditional Interpretation of

‘‘Motor Vehicles’’

Title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 grants

NHTSA regulatory authority over

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

are subject to the Federal motor vehicle

safety standards promulgated by

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

and to the notification and remedy

provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30118–30121. A

‘‘motor vehicle’’ is a vehicle

‘‘manufactured primarily for use on the

public streets, roads, and highways’’ 49

U.S.C. 30102(a)(6). The agency’s

interpretations of this term have

centered around the meaning of the

word ‘‘primarily.’’ The agency has

generally interpreted the term to mean

that a significant portion of a vehicle’s

use must be on the public roads in order

for the vehicle to be considered to be a

motor vehicle.

NHTSA’s principal interpretation of

the definition of ‘‘motor vehicle’’ dates

from 1969, and addressed the status of

mini-bikes. NHTSA said that it would

initially defer to the manufacturer’s

judgment that a vehicle was not a

‘‘motor vehicle.’’ However, the agency

said, the decision and subjective state of

mind of the manufacturer ‘‘* * *

cannot be conclusive * * *.’’ NHTSA

said that to resolve the question of

whether a particular vehicle is a motor

vehicle, it would

invoke the familiar principle that the purpose

for which an act, such as the production of

a vehicle, is undertaken may be discerned

from the actor’s conduct in the light of the

surrounding circumstances. Thus, if a vehicle

is operationally capable of being used on

public thoroughfares, and if in fact, a

substantial proportion of the consumer

public actually uses [it] in that way, it is a

‘‘motor vehicle’’ without regard to the

manufacturer’s intent, however manifested.

In such a case, it would be incumbent upon

a manufacturer of such a vehicle either to

alter the vehicle’s design, configuration, and

equipment to render it unsuitable for on-road

use or, by compliance with applicable motor

vehicle safety standards, to render the

vehicle safe for use on public streets, roads,

and highways.

(October 3, 1969; 34 F.R. 15147)

To resolve borderline cases, NHTSA

set forth criteria that it said it would

employ in determining whether a

particular vehicle is a ‘‘motor vehicle.’’

The agency stated:

[p]erhaps the most important of these

[criteria] is whether state and local laws

permit the vehicle in question to be used and

registered for use on public highways. The

nature of the manufacturer’s promotional and

marketing activities is also evidence of the

use for which the vehicle is manufactured.

Noting the comparative rarity of minibike use on public streets, and that the

registration of mini-bikes for use on

public streets was precluded by laws of

most jurisdictions unless they were

equipped with Standard No.108-type

lighting devices, NHTSA said it would

not consider mini-bikes to be ‘‘motor

vehicles’’ if their manufacturers met the

following criteria:

(1) Do not equip them with devices and

accessories that render them lawful for use

and registration for use on public highways

under state and local laws;

(2) Do not otherwise participate or assist in

making the vehicles lawful for operation on

public roads (as by furnishing certificates of

origin or other title document, unless those

documents contain a statement that the

vehicle was not manufactured for use on

public streets, roads, or highways);

(3) Do not advertise or promote them as

vehicles suitable for use on public roads;

(4) Do not generally market them through

retail dealers of motor vehicles; and

(5) Affix to the mini-bikes a notice stating in

substance that the vehicles were not

manufactured for use on public streets, roads,

or highways and warning operators against

such use.

The agency’s interpretations since

1969 have added new elements to the

mini-bike criteria for determining

whether vehicles capable of on-road use

are ‘‘motor vehicles.’’ The most

important exclude vehicles that have

‘‘abnormal’’ configurations and a top

speed of 20 miles per hour or less. As

an example, NHTSA informed Trans2

Corporation in 1994 that its ‘‘low-speed

electric vehicle’’ intended for use in

residential communities, university

campuses, and industrial complexes

was not a ‘‘motor vehicle’’ because it

had a top speed of 20 mph and unusual

body features that made it readily

distinguishable from ‘‘motor vehicles.’’

These features included an oval-shaped

passenger compartment, taillamps built

into headrests, and a configuration the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 116/Wednesday, June 17, 1998/Rules and Regulations 33199

16The requirement for seat belts was replaced in

September 1997 by a provision authorizing, but not

requiring golf cart transportation plans to include

a requirement for seat belts.

approximate size and height of a golf

cart. On the other hand, in 1995,

NHTSA informed Goodlife Motors

Corporation that its ‘‘super golf car’’ was

a motor vehicle because it had a top

speed of 29 mph and its configuration

resembled that of a prototype

Volkswagen passenger car.

B. 1996 Request for Regulatory Relief

In the spring of 1996, Bombardier,

Inc., asked NHTSA to make regulatory

changes to permit the introduction of a

new class of 4-wheeled vehicle that is

small, relatively slow-moving, and lowcost. The company had identified

retirement communities in the Sunbelt

states as likely prospects for a NEV that

it was developing. Bombardier’s NEV is

a two-passenger vehicle, closed at the

top but open at the sides, intended for

use on city streets at speeds up to 25

miles per hour. It looks very much like

a very small passenger car. The

Bombardier NEV will be available with

a ‘‘low speed golf mode’’ option that

reduces the vehicle’s maximum speed to

15 miles per hour when the ignition key

is turned from ‘‘D’’(rive) to ‘‘G’’(olf).

However, because Bombardier’s NEV

would have been classified as a

passenger car under the agency’s

existing interpretations and regulations

and because its NEV could not meet the

FMVSSs for passenger cars, Bombardier

could not offer its small vehicle for sale

in the United States.

Accordingly, Bombardier asked the

agency to change its longstanding

interpretations of what constitutes a

motor vehicle as they apply to 4-

wheeled vehicles. Under those

interpretations, vehicles that were used

on-road, but that had a distinctive

configuration setting them apart from

the normal traffic flow and that were not

capable of exceeding 20 miles per hour,

were not regarded as motor vehicles.

The company asked that the maximum

speed threshold used in the agency’s

interpretations be increased from 20

miles to 25 miles per hour. Bombardier

stated that limiting the top speed of its

NEV to 20 miles per hour would

compromise the ability of the NEV to

maneuver in traffic on public streets

where it would be operating in a mix

with larger and faster vehicles, and limit

the marketability of the NEV.

Accordingly, it sought a revision of the

NHTSA interpretation instead.

C. Pre-rulemaking Study and 1996

Public Meetings

Since the use of sub-25 mph vehicles

on public roads was a relatively new

phenomenon, NHTSA took special steps

to acquire information regarding such

use. First, the agency commenced a

survey of state laws regarding the use of

golf cars on public roads. NHTSA found

that the statutes of various states, e.g.,

California, Arizona, and Florida, gave

local governments the authority to allow

the use of ‘‘golf carts’’ on public streets.

California has authorized all of its cities

and counties to establish a Golf Cart

Transportation Plan area in which golf

carts are permitted to operate on ‘‘golf

cart lanes,’’ defined as ‘‘roadways * * *

shared with pedestrians, bicyclists, and

other motorists in the plan area.’’ Each

plan must include minimum design

criteria for safety features on golf carts

as well. Arizona provides for

registration of both NEVs and golf cars,

each of which is defined as a vehicle

with a maximum speed of not more than

25 miles per hour, and forbids NEVs

from being driven on public roads with

posted speed limits higher than 35 miles

per hour. Florida has no speed

restrictions for golf cars, but requires

them to be equipped with ‘‘efficient

brakes, reliable steering apparatus, safe

tires, a rearview mirror, and red

reflectorized warning devices in both

the front and rear.’’ That state permits

operation of golf cars on county roads

which have been designated by a county

for use by golf cars, or on city streets

which have been so designated by a

city. Golf cars cannot be operated during

the hours between sunset and sunrise

under California and Florida law, except

that local entities may allow nighttime

use of golf cars equipped with

headlamps, taillamps and stop lamps.

NHTSA decided to study the

California statutes in detail because that

state appeared to have the most

extensive requirements concerning the

on-road safety of golf cars. In 1992,

California amended its Streets and

Highway Code (‘‘CSHC’’) to authorize

the City of Palm Desert to establish a

Golf Cart Transportation Pilot Program

(CSHC Secs. 1930–37), and later

adopted amendments to giving similar

authority to any city or county in

California. As noted above, this

legislation allows local jurisdictions to

establish a Golf Cart Transportation Plan

area in which golf cars are permitted to

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

‘‘roadways * * * shared with

pedestrians, bicyclists, and other

motorists in the plan area’’ (CSHC

1951). Each plan must include

minimum design criteria for safety

features on golf cars as well (CSHC

1961).

A plan under the California law must

also include a permit process for golf

cars to ensure that they meet the

minimum design criteria (CSHC 1961).

At that time, those criteria were

required to include seat belts. 16 Also,

the California law requires an operator

to have a valid California driver’s

license and carry a minimum amount of

insurance.

In addition, the law requires a plan to

allow only golf cars equipped with the

requisite safety equipment to be

operated on ‘‘separated golf cart lanes’’

identified in the plan. Lane striping on

the pavement surface is sufficient for a

lane to qualify as a ‘‘separated golf cart

lane.’’

Pursuant to this law, the City of Palm

Desert drew up and implemented a golf

car transportation plan. As required by

then existing state law, the plan

included a requirement for seat belts.

NHTSA has been informed by the City

of Palm Desert that this plan will cover

NEVs as well as golf cars.

Under that plan, there are three

classes of golf car facilities:

• A ‘‘Class I Golf Cart Path,’’

completely separated from public roads,

for use by golf cars and bicycles only.

• A ‘‘Class II Golf Cart Lane,’’ marked

on public roads with posted speed

limits up to 45 miles per hour (the

separate lane is designated by striping),

for use by golf cars and bicycles only.

• A ‘‘Class III Golf Cart Route,’’ i.e.,

public roads with speed limits of 25

miles per hour or less (the route is

identified by placing Golf Cart Route

signs along roadways). They are for

shared use by golf cars and automobile

traffic.

To gather further information, NHTSA

held a public meeting on July 18, 1996,

in the City of Palm Desert, attended by

state, county, and city officials from

both California and Arizona, golf car

manufacturers, owners, a dealer, and

two NEV manufacturers.

Fourteen commenters spoke at the

meeting, all expressing support for the

use of small, 4-wheeled electric vehicles

on city streets because of environmental

enhancement, consumer benefits, and a

good safety record.

The first speaker was Roy Wilson,

representing the fourth district of the

Riverside County Board of Supervisors,

a member of the governing board of the

South Coast Air Quality Management

District and a member of the Riverside

County Transportation Commission. He

asked for NHTSA’s ‘‘approval in

allowing Neighborhood Electric

Vehicles and other slow-moving

vehicles to operate on public roadways

and to increase the maximum speed

limit to 25 miles an hour.’’ Supervisor
33200 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 116/Wednesday, June 17, 1998/Rules and Regulations

Wilson advised the panel that ‘‘you

have a unique opportunity to provide

leadership in an area of public policy

which has both transportation and air

quality ramifications and which directly

addresses the lifestyle of our growing

senior population.’’ With respect to the

golf car program, which was established

when he was a member of the City of

Palm Desert Council, Supervisor Wilson

stated that

it has reduced congestion on city streets,

provided affordable user friendly alternatives

to transportation needs, and based on this

experience as well as those in areas—

programs that are similar in areas like Davis

[California]; Sun City, Arizona and Lady

Lake, Florida, I believe this program has

tremendous potential.

Supervisor Wilson stated that

favorable action by NHTSA

would expand the pool of electric vehicles

which * * * from an environmental,

primarily air quality perspective, * * * are

also extremely beneficial. They do not emit

toxins including carbon monoxide into the

air.

He was followed by Ramon Diaz, the

city manager of the City of Palm Desert.

Mr. Diaz told the panel that ‘‘the golf

cart program has been very successful

* * * Areas of the city that are being

annexed in are asking us, ‘When can we

have our golf cart lanes? When can we

begin driving our golf carts?’’’

The next commenter, Commander

Steven Bloomquist of the Palm Desert

Section, Riverside Sheriff’s Office,

spoke ‘‘from a law enforcement

perspective.’’ Initially, there were

concerns

about the mixing of slower moving vehicles

with faster moving vehicles and also the size

difference, mentioning the physics of the

speed difference between golf carts and

passenger vehicles and trucks and the like.

However, Commander Bloomquist

had been reassured after his three year

experience with the program:

To date * * * we have not had any accidents

involving the larger vehicles which move at

a greater speed with the slower moving golf

carts.

Assemblyman James F. Battin, Jr.,

represented by his district manager Kim

Estock, addressed the importance of

alternative transportation for senior

citizens:

With a limited income comprised of social

security and perhaps a small retirement fund,

some seniors have been able to cut the cost

of an automobile with insurance out of their

budget altogether because of the option of

using an electric vehicle with a one time

purchase cost.

The California commenters were

supported by those from Arizona,

beginning with R. H. Stranger, regional

manager of Southern California Edison

for Coachella Valley. Mr. Stranger was

followed by David Bentler, Electric

Transportation Project Manager for the

largest electric utility in Arizona

(Arizona Public Service Economic and

Community Development). Mr. Bentler

showed a video in which the

affordability, accessibility, and utility of

the NEV were promoted by the

[unidentified] executive director of the

homeowners association of Westport

Village as well as by the Village’s

recreational office manager, Donna

Highley, two Village residents, Joan and

Larry Thomas, Jerry Unger, a director of

the Sun City Homeowners’ Association,

and Ray Prendergast of the Sierra Club.

Arizona golf car dealer, Steve Pohle of

Sun City, spoke in favor of allowing the

vehicles he sells to use the public roads

at speeds up to 25 miles per hour. He

said that

(i)t is [a speed] that many of our customers

obtain now with their golf carts and are doing

it safely. I think the biggest advantage of that

speed is the ability to be able to, after

stopping at an intersection or wherever they

are traveling, * * * quickly maneuver out of

the way of traffic.

The agency held another public

meeting in Washington, D.C., on July 25,

1996. At that meeting, NGCMA

indicated its objection to the

requirement in the California statutes

and in the City of Palm Desert plan for

seat belts. NGCMA viewed the

requirement as ‘‘antithetical to the

personal safety of drivers and occupants

of golf cars.’’ The association thought

that legislative bodies have ‘‘a very

limited understanding of the physical

limitations of the golf car as it presently

is constructed and the consequent

susceptibility for personal injury and

even death, if seat belts were to be

required.’’ NGCMA apprised the panel

of the industry’s standard, ANSI/

NGCMA Z130.1–1993. It presented

reasons why the industry believed that

a golf car should not be considered a

‘‘motor vehicle,’’ i.e., it stated that golf

cars are designed primarily for use on

golf courses and not the public streets.

The association noted that the industry

does not equip golf cars with equipment

that make them lawful for registration

and use on the public roads. It argued

that accordingly if an owner chooses to

operate a golf car on the public roads,

the manufacturer should not be

penalized for it. NGCMA further stated

that ‘‘(t)he maximum recommended

speed for golf cars under ANSI/NGCMA

Z130.1 is 15 miles per hour.’’ In

addition, it stated that ‘‘the golf car

manufacturers believe that any speed in

excess of 15 miles per hour begins to

approach problems with stability, and

increases the risk of injury or death on

account of the loss of stability and

increased braking distance.’’

(Transcript, July 25, 1996, p. 15)

Given NHTSA’s developing interest,

NGCMA asked that the agency consider

the following:

(1) Initiate steps to preempt all state and local

regulation of golf cars on public roads * * *

until a thorough investigation and analysis

has been made of the safety issues and

optimum responses to these issues;

(2) Mandate speed limits not to exceed 15

miles per hour for any golf car used on public

streets and highways;

(3) Solicit from the golf car manufacturers

recommendations for safety accessories that

might be utilized or recommended for golf

cars whose owners desire to utilize their golf

cars on public streets and highways;

(4) Advise NGCMA of what additional

signage or documentation, if any, should

preferably be furnished golf car purchasers to

ensure the purchaser understands the golf car

was not manufactured for use on public

streets * * * and cautioning operators

against such use unless the vehicle is

equipped with whatever minimum

requirements might be deemed appropriate

by NHTSA;

(5) Consider defining and regulating lightweight vehicles capable of being driven on

public roads as * * * NEVs, to distinguish

NEVs from golf cars which are self-regulated

pursuant to ANSI/NGCMA Z130.1.

References to ‘‘golf cars’’ as such should be

deleted from any state and federal laws and

regulations dealing with motor vehicles.

Further, NGCMA said that NHTSA

‘‘needs to preempt state and local

initiatives on this subject until NHTSA

has clearly identified the safety issues

and appropriate responses to these

issues in a cautious and careful

manner.’’

NHTSA had also asked for written

comments from those who could not

attend its public meetings. The

commenters included representatives of

state and local governments including

law enforcement officials,

manufacturers and users of NEVs and

golf cars, representatives of utilities, a

public interest group, and other

interested persons. Specifically, written

comments were received from Rep.

Sonny Bono, and, in the order received,

from Lois Wolk (mayor, City of Davis),

J. Douglass Lynn (Lynn & Associates

with a subsequent submission as well),

Bombardier, Dr. Tim Lynch (Director,

Center for Economic Forecasting and

Analysis, Institute for Science and

Public Affairs, Florida State University),

the City of Palm Desert, Richard S.

Kelley (president, Southern California

Association of Governments, two

comments by Mr. Thomas of Trans2
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 116/Wednesday, June 17, 1998/Rules and Regulations 33201

17After Trans2 submitted comments on the notice

of proposed rulemaking in this proceeding, its

assets were purchased by Global Electric MotorCars

(GEM) of Fargo, North Dakota.

Corporation,17 Jim Douglas (assistant

director, Motor Vehicle Division,

Arizona Department of Transportation,

the written remarks of the NGCMA

general counsel, several video tapes, Dr.

James M. Lents (executive officer, South

Coast Air Quality Management District),

George Boal (resident of the City of Palm

Desert), Marilyn D. McLaughlin

(resident of the City of Palm Desert),

David Guthrie (deputy director, Arizona

Department of Commerce, Harry C.

Gough (automotive engineering

professional specialist, Connecticut

Department of Motor Vehicles), Paul

and Jacklyn Schlagheck (residents of

Lady Lake, Florida), Dr. Gerald

Donaldson (senior research director,

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety

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

Port St. Lucie, Florida), Paul Jackson

Rice, Esq. (Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin

& Kahn), Sheriff Ralph E. Ogden of

Yuma, Arizona, Lawrence Lingbloom

(Sierra Club California), Cynthia Kelly,

Esq., (government relations counsel,

Golf Course Superintendents

Association of America), the Board of

Directors of the Palm Desert Country

Club Association, Gerald W. (‘‘Wally’’)

Powell (reliability engineer, E–Z–GO

Textron (‘‘E–Z–GO’’), Bob Doyle

(assistant sheriff, patrol and

investigations division, Riverside

County Sheriff’s Office), Wayne Balmer

(community development director,

Mesa, Arizona), and Marvin B. Jaques

(vice president special projects,

Ransomes American Corporation

(‘‘Cushman’’), the manufacturer of

Cushman utility vehicles.

In brief, the governmental authorities

and the public supported the on-road

use of electric golf cars and NEVs as

addressing the public interest in a

cleaner environment. Users noted

approvingly the mobility that is afforded

by the ability to use golf cars and NEVs

on the public roads as an alternative to

the passenger car for short in-town trips.

These groups testified to the absence of

any on-road safety problems involving

golf cars and opposed any regulation by

NHTSA that would curtail driving them

on the public roads, or that would

increase their costs. Golf car

manufacturers objected to the possible

classification of their products as

‘‘motor vehicles’’ and wished to remain

free of Federal regulation.

D. Regulatory Options Considered

After considering the results of its

survey of state and local locals and its

public meetings, the agency identified

three options for responding to

Bombardier’s request. The first was to

grant Bombardier’s request to revise the

agency’s interpretive test for

determining whether an on-road vehicle

is a motor vehicle by raising the

threshold top speed capability from 20

miles per hour to 25 miles per hour.

This option had a number of drawbacks.

If the agency had granted Bombardier’s

request, it would have placed LSVs

beyond its regulatory reach. This would

have been undesirable from a safety

standpoint since, as noted above, there

appeared to be a greater need for Federal

action with respect to LSVs than with

respect to slower vehicles. Further, by

relinquishing its jurisdiction over these

vehicles, NHTSA would have lost the

flexibility to adjust its LSV regulatory

actions in response to any changes in

the safety record of those vehicles.

Finally, this approach would have

allowed the states to adopt differing

requirements for the same aspects of

safety performance, vitiating the intent

of Congress that motor vehicles be

subject to a uniform national set of

Federal safety standards. For these

reasons, NHTSA decided not to grant

Bombardier’s request.

The second option was to maintain

the existing line of interpretations and

vehicle classifications, under which all

vehicles capable of being driven at

speeds of more than 20 miles per hour,

regardless of their configuration, size or

weight, are treated as ‘‘motor vehicles’’

and are subject to the same safety

performance requirements. But simply

leaving the current interpretations and

vehicle classifications in place

effectively would have subjected LSVs

to requirements they could not meet and

thereby effectively prohibited the

manufacture and sale of LSVs. Thus,

this option would not be responsive to

the growing public interest in using

low-cost and low-speed 4-wheeled

vehicles within limited operating

environments.

The third option was for the agency

to revise its existing system of vehicle

classifications by creating a new class of

vehicles comprising LSVs and applying

to them new safety requirements that

would be appropriate for and

accommodate this emerging form of

transportation while addressing its

safety needs. Developing this option

necessitated defining the new class of

vehicles in such a way as to include the

appropriate vehicles and exclude others.

It appeared that standards applicable to

current passenger cars could not, and

need not, be applied in all aspects to

LSVs, but it was not clear what standard

should take their place. Moreover, since

LSVs had not entered the country’s

motor fleet in significant numbers, there

were few crash and injury data on

which to base a judgment about the

extent and nature of the safety need.

Despite these challenges and

uncertainties, the agency determined

the third option to be the most prudent

approach and accordingly used it as the

basis for its proposal.

E. 1997 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Based on the information gathered

through autumn of 1996, NHTSA

developed a proposed regulation for

LSVs, a new vehicle class including

both NEVs and golf cars with a top

speed between 15 and 25 miles per

hour. Both types of vehicles have

similar design and operational

characteristics and are likely to have

common safety problems. As such,

NHTSA decided that the issues of the

proper regulatory treatment for them

should be considered together.

The basic jurisdictional issue was

how to differentiate between golf cars

that were manufactured exclusively for

use on golf courses and those that are

being permitted by states and

municipalities to be operated as on-road

vehicles. NHTSA tentatively decided to

adopt a speed criterion to address this

question. The industry’s standard

Z130.1, which applies to all golf cars,

contains a specification for ‘‘Maximum

vehicle speed ‘‘(paragraph 9.6.1) under

which ‘‘(t)he average speed [of runs in

opposite directions] shall not exceed 15

mi/h (24 km/h)’’ (paragraph 9.6.1.3).

Further, NGCMA stated at the July 25,

1996 public meeting that its primary

activity since its inception had been the

promotion and sponsorship of standard

Z130.1 and that 100 percent of its

members adhered to it. Accordingly, the

record before the agency at the time of

its proposal indicated that if a golf car

could go faster than 15 miles per hour,

the maximum speed permitted by the

industry standard for golf cars to be

used solely on golf courses, the golf car

was not only more likely to be driven

on the public streets than slower golf

cars, but was intended by its

manufacturer to be so used. For these

reasons, NHTSA chose a maximum

speed capability of 15 miles per hour to

distinguish between golf cars truly

manufactured for exclusive golf course

use, and faster golf cars that might

properly be considered ‘‘motor

vehicles’’ for purposes of Federal safety

regulation.

In considering what safety equipment

to propose requiring, NHTSA reviewed

the requirements of the states and

municipalities for golf cars to be used

on the public roads, and found them
33202 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 116/Wednesday, June 17, 1998/Rules and Regulations

varied and sometimes unclear. The

exception was the City of Palm Desert.

The city requires ‘‘golf carts’’ offered for

registration for on-road use to be

equipped with headlamps, front and

rear turn signal lamps, taillamps, stop

lamps, rear side reflex reflectors,

rearview mirrors, a parking brake, horn,

windshield, and seat belts.

Since a Federal motor vehicle safety

standard must be ‘‘reasonable,

practicable, and appropriate’’ for the

types of motor vehicles to which it

applies, NHTSA reviewed the record to

see whether imposition of the City of

Palm Desert equipment requirements

would be reasonable, practicable and

appropriate for golf cars and NEVs.

Steve Pohle had told the NHTSA panel

at the meeting in the City of Palm Desert

that Arizona requires street-legal golf

cars to have head lamps, stop lamps,

taillamps, a horn, and a rearview mirror.

He added, ‘‘the majority of the [golf]

cars I was speaking about are all

equipped that way, so if they are using

it on the street * * * they are equipped

that way. We also always equip them,

although it’s not required by the state,

with a Plexiglass windshield.’’ In reply

to a question as to the difference in cost

‘‘between a cart equipped versus a cart

not equipped,’’ Mr. Pohle estimated ‘‘*

* * about $400 if we’re including the

windshield which would be about $115

of that.’’ The NEV manufacturers

represented that their vehicles would be

manufactured from the start with all the

equipment required by the City of Palm

Desert.

Accordingly, NHTSA considered the

requirements of the City of Palm Desert

to be an appropriate basis for a proposed

Federal safety standard for LSVs. It was

reasonable and appropriate because

NEVs were designed to comply from the

start, and testimony indicated that the

equipment was easily added to existing

golf car designs. It seemed practicable

because there was testimony that new

vehicles could be equipped at

reasonable cost. It addressed the need

for safety because the experience of the

City of Palm Desert had indicated that

on-road safety problems were virtually

nonexistent.

Therefore, NHTSA proposed that

LSVs (defined in the proposal as golf

cars with maximum speeds between 15

and 25 miles per hour, and all vehicles

other than motorcycles and vehicles

with work-performing equipment, with

a top speed of not more than 25 miles

per hour), be equipped with the same

equipment required by the City of Palm

Desert. (January 8, 1997; 62 FR 1077)

There were several minor differences.

First, NHTSA proposed that the

windshield be of AS–1 glazing, the type

that is found in passenger cars. Second,

NHTSA did not propose that LSVs be

equipped with horns. No other FMVSS

requires the installation of horns

because motor vehicles were equipped

with horns long before the first FMVSS

was issued. NHTSA believed that LSV

manufacturers would similarly

incorporate horns as a matter of course.

Third, the agency proposed to require a

label indicating that LSVs should not be

driven at speeds greater than 25 miles

per hour on any road. NHTSA proposed

that the new standard be designated

‘‘Standard No. 100.’’

F. Summary of Comments on Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking

Over 100 comments were received

from three major groups: elected

national, state, and local officials; golf

car manufacturers and dealers; and

advocacy groups. (NHTSA’s Docket

Room has assigned a number to each

comment. For example, the 20th

comment is denoted ‘‘96–65–NO1–020.’’

For simplicity, in discussing specific

submissions in this preamble to the

final rule, the agency uses only the last

three digits to identify the comment,

i.e., ‘‘020.’’)

1. State and Local Officials; Utilities

State and local officials, with one

exception, supported the proposal.

These included Ralph E. Ogden, Yuma

County (AZ) Sheriff’s Office (002);

Rollie K. Seebert, Maricopa County (CA)

Sheriff (005); Richard S. Kelly, Mayor,

City of Palm Desert (CA)(006); D.O.

Helmick (California Highway Patrol

(013); Dottie Berger, Commissioner,

Hillsborough (FL) (014); Michael D.

Branham, Assistant City Manager,

Surprise (AZ)(015); Assemblyman Jim

Battin (CA)(019); David Guthrie,

Arizona Department of Commerce (021);

Ted Hidinger, Electric Transportation

Manager, Arizona Public Service

Economic Development Department

(026); Lois Wolk, Mayor, Davis

(CA)(027); L. Denno, California Highway

Patrol (028); Nancy J. Deller, Deputy

Director, California Energy Commission

(036), Richard D. Lamm, former

Governor, Colorado (056); Pamela Bass,

Vice President, Southern California

Edison (061); Robert H. Cross, Chief

Mobile Source Control Division,

California Air Resources Board (80); and

Kirk Brown, Secretary, Illinois

Department of Transportation (088).

The principal reasons for supporting

the proposal were the enhancement of

air quality that electric-powered LSVs

would bring, and the importance of

developing alternative forms of

transportation. This was most cogently

expressed by David Guthrie, Deputy

Director, Arizona Department of

Commerce (021), who said:

NEV’s * * * provide an affordable,

environmentally friendly alternative to

gasoline powered automobiles that is

consistent with our goal of promoting

‘‘cleaner’’ vehicles without hampering

economic growth or putting undue financial

burdens on our citizens.

We believe the proposed rule is appropriate

for three reasons. First, it allows local and

state governments to continue to regulate the

use of these vehicles, giving them the ability

to set speed zones, require specialized lanes

and establish other requirements as

appropriate. Second, the draft rule [would

require] manufacturers to equip LSVs with

basic safety features like seat belts and

mirrors. Finally, the rule sends a strong

message to states that their alternative

vehicle policies are being received with

respect and support in Washington * * *.

The one exception was C. I.

MacGillvray, Director, Department of

Engineering, Iowa Department of

Transportation (022) who expressed

concern ‘‘at the State level’’ for the

changes ‘‘required to safely integrate

these vehicles into legal operations on

Iowa’s public roadways,’’ citing

licensing of operators, registration of

vehicles, financial responsibility, and

the like.

(B) Manufacturers and Dealers of Golf

Cars and Neighborhood Electric

Vehicles

The two identified categories of

vehicles that would be covered by the

final rule are NEVs and golf cars. NEV

manufacturers and dealers supported

the proposed rule. Commenters

included James M. Thomas, Vice

President Sales and Marketing, Trans2

Corporation (007); Bombardier

Corporation through its outside

counsels Paul Jackson Rice and

Lawrence F. Henneberger (008); Charles

E. Towner, a franchised dealer of

personal and low-speed community

vehicles (AZ)(030); and Delmar C.

Gilchrist, a Trans2 dealer (CA) (034).

The initial response of the golf car

industry was to oppose the proposal.

Comments were submitted by A.

Montague Miller, president and CEO of

Club Car, Inc. (011); the NGCMA general

counsel (016); Gerald W. Powell,

Reliability Engineer, E-Z-Go Textron,

Inc. (017); Scott J. Stevens, President,

Western Golf Car Manufacturing, Inc.

(039); and Charles A. Fain, Vice

President Design Engineering, Club Car,

Inc. (043).

The principal objections were to the

proposed requirements for AS–1

windshields and for seat belts. The

industry asked that an alternative

windshield material (polycarbonate) be

permitted because it ‘‘as well as other
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 116/Wednesday, June 17, 1998/Rules and Regulations 33203

transparent materials are more effective

to provide shatterproof protection to

occupants of golf cars.’’ Seat belts were

opposed in NGCMA’s comments

because they

may enhance the risk of injury or even death

if the occupant is restrained in the vehicle by

a seat belt assembly upon rollover * * *.

Golf carts are equipped with a standard hip

or hand hold restraint located towards the

outside of the seat. However, the hand hold

does not prevent the occupant from jumping

or leaping out of the golf car to avoid further

injury if the golf cart is about to roll over. For

this reason, * * * in lieu of a seat belt

requirement for golf cars, a hand hold or hip

restraint should be required as set forth in

ANSI/NGCMA Z 130.1.

The industry also objected to the

proposed effective date of 45 days after

the issuance of the final rule, saying that

‘‘a minimum of 24 to 36 months’’ would

be required ‘‘to achieve the design and

tooling required by the proposed

standard.’’ Finally, the industry

submitted that

to properly comply with the seat belt FMVSS

Standard No. 209, together with the other

items to be required, the manufacturing cost

to comply will exceed $800 to $1,000 per

vehicle without regard to design and tooling

expenditures approximating $500,000 per

manufacturer.

Golf car manufacturers and dealers

apprised Members of Congress of their

opposition to the proposal. As a result,

letters of inquiry were received from a

number of Senators and Representatives

(see, e.g., comment 033, which was

signed by six Representatives from

Georgia).

3. Advocacy Organizations

NHTSA also received comments from

a number of public interest or advocacy

organizations. These included:

Consumer Federation of America

(‘‘CFA’’)(001), Advocates for Highway &

Auto Safety (‘‘Advocates’’)(020), Sierra

Club California (032), and Washington

Legal Foundation (‘‘WLF’’)(038).

Sierra Club California supported the

proposed rule without qualification. It

stated that

* * * (i)t was happy to see the federal

government is acting to form a consensus

regarding the use of LSVs at the national and

state levels. The Sierra Club California hopes

that other states and municipalities will

follow your lead in developing localized

alternative transportation program consistent

with this rule, and in consultation with the

appropriate law enforcement and public

safety agencies.

It stated further that ‘‘(a)s an

alternative to automobiles, LSVs can

reduce the number of trips by car and

eliminate the need for cold starts, e.g.,

the first few minutes of operation where

the majority of toxic emissions are

generated from gasoline-powered

vehicles.’’

However, the other advocacy

organizations were not in favor of the

proposal. WLF opposed subjecting LSVs

to safety performance requirements,

arguing that ‘‘NHTSA has not shown

that there is a problem that requires

attention.’’ It cites the preamble’s

statements that ‘‘there are virtually no

accident data concerning [golf cars]’’

and ‘‘intuitively, it appears that

passengers in LSVs might be at

significant risk because of the small size

and relative fragility of LSVs.’’ In WLF’s

view, ‘‘NHTSA has not shown that any

safety problem exists and has no

justification whatsoever for

implementing these costly and

extensive regulations.’’ WLF also argued

that, given the alleged propensity of golf

cars to roll over, the net effect of

requiring seat belts could be to increase

deaths and injuries.

On the other hand, Advocates and

CFA opposed allowing the manufacture

and sale of a class of passenger vehicles

subject to a lesser set of safety

performance requirements than those

applicable to passenger cars. Advocates

opposed allowing ‘‘a new class of motor

vehicles on public roads which are

unable to protect their occupants in

crashes up to 25 mph.’’ Advocates

argued that the agency had not provided

any documentation of the current onroad crash experience of golf cars, that

the agency had not adequately

examined the regulatory and safety

record of allegedly similar vehicles in

Japan and France, that there was no

agency plan to organize the collection,

retrieval and analysis of LSV crash data,

and that pressure for inexpensive

transportation and claims of

environmental benefit would inevitably

lead to the designing and marketing of

LSVs that are increasingly car-like and

to future requests for the agency to

increase the upper speed threshold for

LSVs. CFA, too, thought that safety

problems would arise with the advent of

a new, small class of vehicles, and

recommended that all vehicles with a

maximum speed of 15 miles per hour or

more be required to meet all Federal

motor vehicle safety standards.

4. Other Commenters

A number of additional comments

were submitted by other persons, some

of them supporting the proposal, others

opposing it.

Dr. Tim Lynch, Director, Center for

Economic Forecasting and Analysis,

Florida State University, concluded that

promotion of electric vehicles would

lead to fuel savings and would benefit

the environment (023).

Kevin Breen, Chair of the SAE Special

Purpose Vehicle Committee, apprised

the agency of SAE Standard J2258, Light

Utility Vehicles, issued in 1996, and

draft SAE J2358, Closed Community

Vehicles. The light utility vehicles

covered by SAE Standard J2258 are offhighway vehicles 72 inches or less in

overall width, with a gross vehicle

weight rating (GVWR) of 5,000 pounds

or less and a maximum design speed of

less than 25 miles per hour. The

standard specifies requirements for

‘‘elements of design, operation, and

maintenance.’’ The Committee is

studying ‘‘the use of golf-car based

vehicles for closed community

applications,’’ with attention to ‘‘issues

such as braking, lighting,

crashworthiness, stability, etc.’’ In his

opinion, NHTSA’s proposed standard is

inappropriate because

1. The standard permits vehicles to be

operated in an on-highway situation in a

traffic mix with typical highway vehicles

without adequate consideration for braking,

crashworthiness, etc.

2. The proposed requirements for seat belts

in an open vehicle are contrary to current

occupant protection technology relating to

open vehicles (i.e., motorcycles,

snowmobiles, etc.).

* * * * *

4. The exemption of certain ‘‘work class’’

vehicles from this standard opens acceptance

of their use in a highway situation creating

a potential hazard for both the users of those

vehicles and the general motoring public

who may interact with them.

5. The standard as currently drafted

includes too broad of a scope of vehicles. If

adequate data exists, rulemaking could be

limited at this time to NEVs. Vehicles such

as golf car or golf-cart based vehicles should

not be considered in proposed FMVSS 100 at

this time.

Two residents of Ypsilanti, Michigan

questioned the wisdom of NHTSA’s

action (003, 004). Manufacturers of

vehicles that are not ‘‘motor vehicles,’’

as that term is interpreted by NHTSA,

wanted reassurance that their products

would not inadvertently be included in

the new rule (Truck Manufacturers

Association (009), Toro (012), and

Industrial Truck Association (024)). The

American Insurance Association

claimed that NHTSA’s action is an

‘‘abuse of discretion’’ because the

agency lacks authority to dilute safety

regulations and increase crashes, deaths

and injuries. That organization argued

further that the proposal was ‘‘arbitrary

and capricious’’ because the agency

lacks sufficient crash data to enable it to

make reasonable projections about the

safety record of LSVs. (010)
33204 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 116/Wednesday, June 17, 1998/Rules and Regulations

Other commenters were concerned

with specific aspects of the proposed

equipment. Transportation Safety

Equipment Institute argued that

performance requirements should be

specified for LSV lighting devices (018).

George Ziolo thought that LSVs should

have a flashing amber light at the rear

or on the top as a low-speed warning

(040). SMV Technologies sent examples

of a warning triangle which some states

require be affixed to farm tractors using

the public roads, and recommended that

LSVs be similarly equipped (068).

G. Post-Comment Period Comments and

Information

1. Manufacturers and Dealers of Golf

Cars; Members of Congress

Although the comment period closed

on February 24, 1997, a substantial

number of comments were received

after that date. Many of them were

letters from Members of Congress on

behalf of golf car manufacturers, dealers,

and users. The letters from the Members

of Congress, as well as the letters from

the parties on whose behalf they were

writing, typically expressed many of the

same concerns, e.g., concern that the

proposal would regulate fleet and

personal golf cars, that requiring seat

belts in golf cars might increase danger

in a rollover, and that AS–1 windshields

would not be sufficiently protective

against golf balls.

In an August 12, 1997 letter, NGCMA

submitted suggested revisions to the

agency’s proposed standard. (NGCMA,

073) NGCMA suggested that personal

golf cars be defined as vehicles that may

carry golf equipment and have a

maximum speed greater than 15, but

less than 20 miles per hour. It suggested

that personal golf cars be regulated in

the same fashion as LSVs, except that

personal golf cars would not be required

to have seat belts. Further, NGCMA

suggested that personal golf cars and

any other LSV be permitted to have a

windshield of ‘‘shatter resistant

polymer’’ instead of AS–1 glazing.

In a December 22, 1997 letter,

NGCMA informed NHTSA its members

were amendable to equipping personal

golf cars with all of the proposed items

of equipment, with two exceptions.

NGCMA asked that its members not be

required to install seat belts and that

they be given a choice between using

AS–1 glazing or shatter resistant

polymer for the windshield. It indicated

that an effective date of from six to

twelve months after publication would

be acceptable, provided that its

suggestions about seat belts and

windshield glazing were adopted by the

agency. (NGCMA, 104). In the letter,

that organization reaffirmed its desire to

limit the top speed of personal golf cars

to 20 miles per hour and indicated that

the industry does not manufacture

personal golf cars which have a higher

top speed.

During February 1998, the agency

received letters from over 30

commenters who identified themselves,

generally, as dealers of golf carts and

such other products as watercraft and

motorcycles. All said that the issuance

of a final rule was necessary for their

livelihood and asked NHTSA to issue it

immediately. These letters unqualifiedly

supported the proposal, without stating

any reservations about to the proposed

requirements for windshields and seat

belts.

In March 1988, over 30 dealers and

distributors of Club Car golf cars

informed NHTSA that if the agency

limited the seat belt requirement as

requested by NGCMA in its December

1997 letter, they would not oppose the

issuance of an LSV final rule. (March

20, 1998 letter from Eileen Bradner,

Counsel to Club Car, Inc.)

2. Other sources

In February 1998, NHTSA obtained

from the Consumer Product Safety

Commission (CPSC) data concerning

injuries and deaths involving golf car

occupants. This information covers all

types of golf cars, and all uses (on and

around golf courses and on streets and

highways).

CPSC provided the agency with

information from four different sources:

• A summary of incidents and

national estimates for injuries involving

golf cars from the National Electronic

Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) for

the years 1993 to 1997. NEISS is

comprised of a sample of hospitals that

are statistically representative of

hospital emergency rooms nationwide.

From the data collected, estimates can

be made of the numbers of injuries

associated with consumer products and

treated in hospital emergency

departments.

• A printout of crash investigations

involving golf cars, conducted by CPSC

on-site or by telephone. This

information is obtained from NEISS

files, newspaper clippings, consumer

complaints and Underwriters

Laboratory.

• A printout of reported incidents

involving golf cars. The reports are

obtained from CPSC’s Medical

Examiners and Coroners Alert Program

(MECAP), Underwriters Laboratory,

American Trial Lawyers Association,

Consumers Union, and newspaper

clippings.

• A printout of death certificates in

which a golf car was mentioned. CPSC

has contracts with all 50 State Health

Departments to provide information

about death certificates that mention the

use of certain products, including golf

cars.

The agency notes that there are limits

to the conclusions that can be drawn

from these data for the purposes of this

rulemaking. First, only the data from the

first of these four sources can be used

to make national projections about the

size of health significance of the

operation of golf cars. Second, much of

the CPSC data relate to incidents that

occurred when golf cars were being

operated on a golf course or in other offroad situations.

During March 1998, NHTSA’s Vehicle

Research Test Center (VRTC) conducted

a study of a Bombardier NEV, a Global

Electric MotorCars NEV, and a Yamaha

golf car. As described in the study

report, the study was intended to

provide the basis for an evaluation of

the potential stability of LSVs on public

highways and the safety potential of

these vehicles in a crash. VRTC

examined the vehicles with respect to

seat belts, stability, stopping distance,

electrolyte spillage, and glazing, and

subjected them to braking and dynamic

handling tests. The seat belts on the

NEVs were deemed to be anchored to

adequate structure. The golf car had no

seat belts. Regarding stability, the study

concluded that an LSV with a static

stability factor below 1.0 with two

occupants could probably tip easily in

a tight turn at 20 mph. As for stopping

distance from 20 miles per hour, the

Bombardier NEV easily passed the

requirements of FMVSS No. 135,

Passenger Car Brake Systems, while the

Global Electric MotorCars NEV passed

marginally. The golf car could not meet

these requirements. With respect to the

issue of electrolyte spillage in a crash or

rollover, it was noted that the

Bombardier NEV appeared to be capable

of shielding the occupants from the

batteries so long as the fiberglass shell

was intact. The other NEV did not have

the batteries shielded from the occupant

area. The golf car was gasoline-powered.

VRTC also conducted impact tests on

windshield glazing, which is discussed

in some detail below under ‘‘Safety

Engineering Issues.’’

In April 1998, NHTSA asked the City

of Palm Desert for an update on the

implementation of its plan. In the 21

months since the agency’s public

meeting in July 1996, the number of golf

carts registered for use under the plan

rose from 193 to approximately 250.

Two crashes have occurred since then,

although neither caused an injury. The
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 116/Wednesday, June 17, 1998/Rules and Regulations 33205

18 Indeed, it is possible that the very

modifications that are made to enhance on-road

performance could render speed-modified golf cars

unsuitable for golf course use if their low speed

torque is increased too much. Excessive torque

could damage the turf on golf courses.

first crash occurred when the driver of

a conventional car turned the corner

and hit a golf car that was being illegally

driven in the pedestrian crosswalk. In

the second crash, a golf car operator had

left the City of Palm Desert plan area

and was struck just over the border of

the next town, Indian Wells, when the

golf car turned into the driveway of a

country club. As noted in the NPRM,

the only crash that occurred between

1993 and 1996 involved the overturning

of a golf car being operated by joy-riding

teenagers.

IV. Final Rule and Resolution of Key

Issues

A. Summary

The final rule establishes a new class

of 4-wheeled vehicles, called LSVs, and

excludes them from passenger car class.

LSVs are 4-wheeled vehicles, other than

trucks, whose maximum speed exceeds

20 but is not greater than 25 miles per

hour. By removing them from the

passenger car class, the rule relieves

manufacturers of LSVs of the need they

would otherwise have of complying

with the full range of FMVSSs for those

classes and substitutes Standard No. 500

as the only applicable FMVSS. With the

exception of the warning label, which

was not adopted, LSVs are required to

have all the safety features and

equipment proposed in the NPRM,

including seat belts, plus two additional

items added in response to comments:

a VIN, and a reflex reflector on the rear.

However, as an alternative to an AS–1

windshield, an AS–5 plastic windshield

may be used.

B. Authority and Safety Need for this

Final Rule

NHTSA was presented with a variety

of arguments regarding its authority to

regulate low-speed vehicles. WLF raised

questions whether the vehicles covered

by the agency’s proposal are motor

vehicles. That organization also argued

that issuing the final rule would not

promote safety because there is no

safety problem to be addressed.

Conversely, Advocates and CFA argued

that excluding small vehicles from the

FMVSSs will create a safety problem.

AIA and Advocates stated that the

agency had not adequately gathered and

considered relevant data prior to issuing

the proposal, citing agency statements

about the dearth of data on LSV crashes

and about the foreign experiences with

small vehicles.

1. Low-Speed Vehicles are Motor

Vehicles

Title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 grants

NHTSA regulatory authority over

‘‘motor vehicles.’’ A ‘‘motor vehicle’’ is

defined as a vehicle ‘‘manufactured

primarily for use on the public streets,

roads, and highways’’ (Sec. 30102(a)(6)).

As noted above, NHTSA’s principal

interpretation of the definition of

‘‘motor vehicle’’ dates from 1969, and

addressed the status of mini-bikes.

NHTSA said that if a type of vehicle is

physically capable of being operated on

the public roads and if a substantial

portion of the users of those vehicles

uses them on the road, those vehicles

are motor vehicles, without regard to the

intent of the manufacturer. It bears

repeating that the agency said that

perhaps the most important criterion to

be used in resolving borderline cases

* * * is whether state and local laws

permit the vehicle in question to be used and

registered for use on public highways. The

nature of the manufacturer’s promotional and

marketing activities is also evidence of the

use for which the vehicle is manufactured.

a. Speed-modified golf cars are motor

vehicles. Not only are speed-modified

golf cars whose top speed is between 20

and 25 miles per hour fast enough to be

capable of being used on roads with

low-posted speed limits, but also their

operation on public roads is

commonplace. 18 (See the testimony

regarding their on-road use in Arizona

at the agency’s first public meeting.)

Further, much of the on-road use is not

incidental to the playing of golf. Instead,

many trips are made for purposes

unrelated to golf, such as shopping or

visiting friends. The agency notes that

Club Car, one of the larger

manufacturers of golf cars, stated that

the market for and use of personal golf

cars are largely limited to the states and

local jurisdictions that permit the onroad use of golf cars. NHTSA believes

that it is reasonable to conclude that the

market for speed-modified golf cars is

similarly limited, and that virtually all

users of those vehicles use them on the

road.

Although the agency does not regard

the question of whether speed-modified

golf cars are motor vehicles to be a

borderline one, the agency notes that

even if it were, those vehicles meet

several of the key criteria considered by

the agency in borderline cases. As noted

above, 12 states authorize their local

governments to permit general purpose

use of golf cars on designated roads and

another four permit more limited onroad use. A majority of those states

require either that the golf cars be

registered or that the user have a

driver’s license, or both. The modifiers

of these vehicles do not label these

vehicles as being not manufactured for

on-road use. Quite the contrary, they

equip them with the equipment

required by states and local jurisdictions

for on-road use. Further, their top speed

capability is far above the maximum

average permissible speed specified in

the voluntary industry for golf cars

intended exclusively for use on golf

courses. Finally, they advertise the top

speed capability of their vehicles. Since

driving these golf cars at or near their

top speeds on golf courses is

presumably impermissible and since

their on-road use is commonplace, such

advertising is tantamount to advertising

them for on-road use.

b. Neighborhood Electric Vehicles are

Motor Vehicles. The agency begins its

analysis of whether NEVs are motor

vehicles by noting that neither of the

two current NEV manufacturers contest

that NEVs may properly be regarded as

motor vehicles under the Vehicle Safety

Act. The agency’s analysis is essentially

the same as that for speed-modified golf

cars, except that since only a few NEVs

have been sold in this country, the

agency must base its analysis for NEVs

on their anticipated marketing and use.

Not only are NEVs fast enough to be

capable of being used on roads with

low-posted speed limits, but also they

are expected to be used extensively for

that purpose. It is further anticipated

that much of the on-road use will not be

incidental to the playing of golf. NHTSA

believes that it is reasonable to conclude

that the market for NEVs will be limited

to the states and local jurisdictions that

permit the on-road use of golf cars or

NEVs, and that virtually all users of

those vehicles will use them on the

road.

As in the case of speed-modified golf

cars, the agency does not regard the

question of whether NEVs are motor

vehicles to be a borderline one.

Nevertheless, the agency notes that even

if it were, those vehicles meet several of

the key criteria considered by the

agency in borderline cases. 12 states

authorize their local governments to

permit general purpose use of golf cars

and/or NEVs on designated roads and

another four permit more limited onroad use. A majority of those states

require either that the golf cars or NEVs

be registered or that the user have a

driver’s license, or both. As originally

manufactured, these vehicles are

equipped with the safety devices and

features required by states and local

jurisdictions for on-road use. Further,

their top speed capability is far above

the maximum average permissible speed
33206 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 116/Wednesday, June 17, 1998/Rules and Regulations

19 Although designed to be a census of all traffic

fatalities, FARS does not contain all of the on-road

golf car fatalities reported by CPSC to NHTSA. The

submissions from CPSC include information on an

additional seven deaths.

20 This number was confirmed in a June 3, 1988

telephone conversation with Detective Jeffrey

Childs of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s

Department.

specified in the voluntary industry for

golf cars intended exclusively for use on

golf courses. While both NEV

manufacturers provide a device that can

be used to reduce vehicle speeds to

levels appropriate for golf course use,

that device is available from one of the

manufacturers only as an item of

optional equipment. Finally, the two

NEV manufacturers advertise their

vehicles for on-road use.

2. The Agency Has Authority to

Regulate Anticipated as well as Current

Safety Problems

In response to WLF’s argument,

NHTSA observes that its authority is

preventive in nature. Congress has

charged it with issuing standards to

protect the public against ‘‘unreasonable

risk’’ of crashes and of deaths and

injuries resulting from crashes. 49

U.S.C. 30102(8) and 30111(a). This

means that the existence of a risk is

sufficient to justify the issuance of

standards. If the occurrence of deaths

and injuries is reasonably anticipated,

NHTSA need not wait until they

actually begin to occur in large numbers

before taking action to prevent them.

3. Issuance of this Rule Appropriately

Addresses an Anticipated Safety

Problem

a. Crash Data Show a Limited Safety

Problem Involving the On-Road Use of

Fleet and Personal Golf Cars. Crash data

have become available since the NPRM

showing that although deaths and

serious injuries resulting from the onroad use of golf cars are not numerous,

they are occurring. NHTSA’s Fatal

Analysis Reporting System (FARS) is a

census of all fatalities and fatal crashes

occurring on U.S. roads open to the

public and resulting in the death of an

occupant or nonmotorist within 30 days

of the crash. FARS has records of nine

deaths of golf car occupants on the

public roads from 1993 to February

1998. 19 Three of the deaths occurred in

Arizona, three in North Carolina, one

each in California, Florida and Iowa.

Eight of the nine deaths resulted when

the golf car collided with a car or truck.

The ninth occurred when the golf car

ran off the road and its occupants were

ejected. Data from CPSC include an

additional seven deaths in on-road

crashes not included in FARS, implying

a total of 16 fatalities over a 5-year

period. The city that has recorded the

most deaths appears to be Sun City,

Arizona. According to an Associated

Press story dated March 12, 1998, there

had been four deaths in golf car crashes

in Sun City since 1995. 20

In addition, NHTSA obtained data

from CPSC regarding injuries and deaths

involving the operation of golf cars. This

information covers all types of golf cars,

and all uses (on and around golf

courses, as well as on public streets and

roads). CPSC provided the agency with

four different sources of information

about golf cars. Three of these were

relevant:

1. A printout of reported incidents

involving golf cars. The reports are

obtained from CPSC’s Medical

Examiners and Coroners Alert Program,

Underwriters Laboratory, American

Trial Lawyers Association, Consumers

Union, consumer complaints, and

newspaper clippings, and are not

statistically reliable for national

estimates. The reported incident data set

included 19 on-road incidents between

1993 and February 1998, 14 of which

were fatalities. All 9 of the FARS cases

were included in these 14 cases. These

fatalities mostly occurred when the golf

car collided with a passenger car or light

truck on roadways.

2. A printout of death certificates in

which a golf car was mentioned. CPSC

has contracts with all 50 State Health

Departments to provide information

about death certificates that mention the

use of certain products, including golf

cars; however, not all states reported

during the entire period. The Death

Certificate file reported 3 on-road

fatalities involving golf cars during the

period 1993 to February 1998. One of

these cases was included in the 14 cases

mentioned above and 2 were not. Thus,

there are a total of at least 16 on-road

fatalities to occupants of golf cars during

the period 1993 to February 1998.

3. A summary of incidents and

national estimates for injuries involving

golf cars from the National Electronic

Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) for

the years 1993 to 1997. These data are

a compilation of information derived

from reports of product-associated

injuries treated in hospital emergency

departments that participate in the

National Electronic Injury Surveillance

System. The NEISS estimates are

calculated using data from a probability

sample of hospitals with emergency

departments located within the United

States and its territories.

The following table presents incidents

for ‘‘golf carts’’ reported by CPSC’s

NEISS during the years 1993–1997:

NEISS REPORTED INCIDENTS

[1993–1997]

Type of injury 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 5 year total

Pedestrian injury ............................................................... 36 19 18 16 30 119

Off-road injury ................................................................... 96 138 145 146 168 693

On-road injury ................................................................... 3 4 5 5 6 23

On-road fatality ................................................................. 1 0 0 0 0 1

Rollover injury ................................................................... 4 4 8 4 7 27

Ejection injury .................................................................... 26 17 14 11 12 94

Total 21 ....................................................................... 100 142 149 161 174 726

21The figures in the columns are not additive because some injuries fit into more than one category.

Based on the data in the above table,

the agency has estimated the total

national injuries associated with ‘‘golf

carts’’ of all types and uses (i.e., on-road

as well as on golf courses) to be 6,372,

6,808, 7,603, and 7,218 for the years

1993 through 1996.

The agency estimates that there were

an average of 222 on-road golf car

injuries per year over the 5-year period.

This injury estimate is calculated as

follows: 7,000 injuries (national annual

injury average for 1993–1998) × 23 (onroad or vehicle-involved injuries) / 726

(NEISS reported incidents 1993–1997) =

222 annual average of national injuries.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 116/Wednesday, June 17, 1998/Rules and Regulations 33207

There is only 1 fatality involving a

golf car in the 5 years of NEISS data.

However, based on the reported

incident and death certificate data

provided to NHTSA, there were 16 onroad golf car fatalities over a 5-year

period, an average of 3 fatalities per

year.

NHTSA anticipates that the number of

on-road serious injuries and deaths

involving occupants of fleet and

personal golf cars will grow with the

growth in number and speed of the

same or similar vehicles on the road.

The number of golf cars operated on

public roads is currently limited. As

more state legislatures authorize their

local jurisdictions to designate public

roads for use of low-speed vehicles and

other vehicles, and especially as more

local jurisdictions use that authority, the

sale and use of low-speed vehicles will

increase. Further, to the extent that NEV

manufacturers are successful, it seems

likely that golf car manufacturers will

respond to that competition by

intensifying their efforts to sell personal

golf cars whose top speed is between 15

and 20 miles per hour.

b. The States Have Adopted Laws

Requiring Safety Equipment on Fleet

and Personal Golf Cars Used on Public

Roads. The majority of the 12 states that

have enacted legislation permitting allpurpose on-road use of golf cars and/or

NEVs believe that there is a need for

safety requirements and have taken

steps to satisfy that need. Nine of those

12 states have mandated that those

vehicles have specified safety

equipment if they are used on-road and

a tenth state authorized its local

governments to adopt safety

requirements. (See the table below.)

Further, in their comments on the

NPRM, state officials in California,

Arizona, and Iowa indicated that they

believe that the issuance of Federal

safety requirements is warranted.

STATES PERMITTING ALL-PURPOSE GOLF CAR TRIPS ON PUBLIC ROADS WITHIN JURISDICTION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

State Roads on which operation is permitted Required safety equipment

California ................... On private and public roadways designated by local government.Local government may require safety devices. Headlamps,

taillamps, reflectors, stop lamps, and brakes for nighttime operation.

Nevada ...................... On public roadways designated by local government ......... Headlamps, taillamps, reflectors, stop lamps, mirror,

brakes and an emblem placard for slow moving vehicles.

Arizona ...................... On roadways with posted speed limit of 35 mph or less ..... Headlamps, taillamps, reflectors, stop lamps, mirror,

brakes, and a notice of operations and restrictions in full

view of driver.

New Mexico ............... On private and public roadways designated by local government. Carts may not be operated on state highways.An emblem placard or flashing yellow light for slow moving

vehicles is required.

Colorado .................... On private and public roadways designated by local government.Headlamps, taillamps, reflectors, stop lamps, mirror, and

brakes.

Wyoming .................... On public streets and roadways designated by local government.Local government may require safety devices.

Illinois 22 ..................... On roadways designated by local governments .................. Steering apparatus, rearview mirror, front and rear red

reflectorized warning devices, slow moving vehicle emblem, headlight, brake lights and turn signals

Minnesota .................. On roads designated by local government .......................... Slow moving vehicle emblem and a rear view mirror.

Iowa ........................... On private and public roadways designated by local government. Carts may not be operated on primary roads.Slow moving vehicle emblem, bicycle safety flag, adequate

brakes. Local government may require other safety

equipment.

Florida ........................ On private and public roadways designated by local government and in self-contained retirement communities.Efficient brakes, reliable steering apparatus, safe tires,

rearview mirror, and red reflectorized warning device in

front and rear. Headlamps, taillamps, and stop lamps for

nighttime operation.

Georgia ...................... On private and public roadways designated by local government.None.

Texas ......................... On private and public roadways designated by local government.None.

22Passed by legislature May 6, 1998; sent to Governor June 4, 1998.

c. There is a similar, but greater

anticipated safety problem involving

low-speed vehicles. Largely because of

their greater speed, the potential for

growth in the numbers of LSVs, and in

the number of deaths and serious

injuries associated with LSVs, is even

greater. NHTSA anticipates that sales of

LSVs will steadily grow and that, as a

result, there will be increased exposure

leading to increased numbers of serious

injuries and deaths. While the number

of LSVs is limited now, it will grow,

particularly with the introduction and

sale of NEVs. To the extent that the NEV

market expands, existing NEV

manufacturers will be induced to make

further improvements to increase

consumer appeal and new

manufacturers may be induced to enter

the market. The product improvements

resulting from this competition will

likely boost sales further. Further, to the

extent that NEV manufacturers are

successful, new manufacturers of speedmodified golf cars may be induced to

enter the market. Since LSVs will likely

be faster than most of the sub-25 mph

vehicles on the road during 1993–1997,

the crash forces of single and multiple

vehicle crashes involving LSVs will

tend to be greater than the crash forces

in those 1993–1997 crashes. As a result,

the LSV crashes will be more likely to

result in serious or fatal injuries to their

occupants. Further, the higher speed of

an LSV, while enabling a driver to pass

through risky driving situations more

quickly, may also induce a driver to take

risks in more situations.

d. This rule requires safety equipment

on low-speed vehicles consistent with

their characteristics and operating

environment. Advocates and CFA were

concerned about the risk to safety posed

by a growing class of small vehicles and

argued that NHTSA’s actions are

contrary to its statutory mandate
33208 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 116/Wednesday, June 17, 1998/Rules and Regulations

23Motorcycles are already subject to a variety of

FMVSSs.

because they will exacerbate the risk.

Their concern related to the potential

for crashes involving small vehicles

such as LSVs and larger ones that may

be sharing the same roadway, and the

threat that this poses to occupants of

LSVs.

NHTSA has carefully reviewed their

argument about the effects of this

rulemaking. LSV safety, and thus the

need for FMVSSs for LSVs, will be

determined by the combination of three

factors: vehicle design and performance;

operator training and ability; and the

operating environment. The agency

believes that Standard No. 500, in

combination with a limited operating

environment and appropriate operator

training and ability, will appropriately

address the safety needs of LSV users.

With respect to the LSV itself, the

safety goal is that the vehicle have crash

avoidance and crash protection

characteristics appropriate for its speed

and size, and its operating environment.

Seat belts will afford protection against

ejection. In the mixed motoring

environment that will result when LSVs

are introduced, crash avoidance will

become all the more important. The

small LSV must be easily detectable by

drivers of larger vehicles. The

requirements for lamps and reflectors

should enhance the conspicuity of

LSVs. Further, the LSV must have

sufficient capability to move out of the

way of faster traffic. LSVs designed to

travel at speeds approaching 25 miles

per hour will give them greater ability

than fleet and personal golf cars to

maneuver in and out of on-road

situations that threaten them, e.g., when

passing through an intersection after

stopping at a stop sign or when turning

left across lanes for oncoming traffic.

With respect to the operator, the

safety goal is that the driver be familiar

with the operating characteristics of the

LSV so that he or she may drive

appropriately to minimize the

possibility of rollover, or hitting a

pedestrian or other vehicle. States can

contribute to driver safety by requiring

LSV operators to be licensed.

The driving environment should be

appropriate to the vehicle and its

characteristics. Limitation of LSV use to

low-speed city and suburban streets is

necessary, but not eliminate the safety

risks. In this regard, the agency notes

that there have been four fatalities in

golf car crashes in Sun City, Arizona.

Conversely, none have occurred in the

City of Palm Desert.

There are a number of possible

reasons for the reported different safety

records of these two cities. A very large

difference in the number of golf cars

used on-road may be one reason.

Approximately 6,000 golf cars are

driven on the roads of Sun City, while

the number of golf cars registered for onroad use in City of Palm Desert is only

approximately 250. Also, neither

Arizona nor Sun City requires all of the

safety equipment (e.g., seat belts) that

the City of Palm Desert requires.

Still another reason may lie in the

different operating environments in the

two communities. The City of Palm

Desert has a more controlled

environment than Sun City for golf car

use. The City of Palm Desert permits onroad use of golf cars in the same lanes

as passenger cars and other larger motor

vehicles in speed zones posted for

speeds up to 25 miles per hour. In speed

zones posted for speeds over 25 miles

per hour, golf cars may be operated onroad only if there is a lane designated

for their use and if the golf car is, in fact,

operated within that lane. By contrast,

NHTSA understands that Sun City,

under state law, allows golf cars to

operate in the same lanes as larger

traffic on any road with a maximum

speed of 35 miles per hour.

NHTSA recognizes that not all

operating environments may be as

controlled as that of the City of Palm

Desert. The agency encourages other

states and municipalities to study the

features of the City of Palm Desert’s

plan, and to adopt those features to the

extent practicable.

4. The Agency Has Appropriately

Considered the Experience of Foreign

Small Vehicles

In the NPRM, the agency noted that

small, but generally higher speed

passenger vehicles were being marketed

in Japan (‘‘kei’’ cars) and France

(Voiture Sans Permis (VSP) and

Tricycles et Quadricycles a Moteur

(TQM)). Within the limits of its

knowledge at the time of the NPRM, the

agency described the physical attributes

of these vehicles and some of the

operating limitations.

Advocates responded to this

discussion in the NPRM by arguing that

the agency had not adequately

considered these foreign experiences

with small vehicles. Since the NPRM,

the agency has obtained additional

information regarding both kei cars and

the French voiturettes. The limits on

length, width and engine displacement

of kei cars have been steadily eased over

the last 20 years. Limit on engine

displacement has increased from less

than 360 cc prior to 1976, to less than

550 cc in 1976, to less than 660 cc in

1990. Length limits have increased

slightly, from approximately 3.2 m in

1976, to 3.3 m in 1990 to 3.4 m in

October 1998. Width limits have slightly

increased from less than 1.4 in 1976 to

less than 1.48 in October 1998.

NHTSA is also aware that the safety

requirements for kei cars have been

steadily increased in the 1990’s.

Beginning in 1994, frontal crash

protection requirements had to be met

by kei cars at 40 km/hr and by passenger

cars at 50 km/hr. Those requirements

are a HIC not greater than 1000, thorax

acceleration not greater than 60g and

femur load not greater than 10kn. The

test speed for the frontal crash

protection requirements will become the

same (50 km/hr) for kei cars and

passenger cars in October of this year,

when the most recent increases in kei

car length and width become effective.

As for the two classes of voiturettes in

Europe, the agency has learned that the

European Union (EU) issued a directive

last year harmonizing laws in EU for

mopeds, auto-cycles, motorcycles and

motorized tricycles and quadricycles

(‘‘voiturettes’’) with respect to tires,

lighting, signaling, mirrors, fuel tanks,

seat belts, and belt anchorages, washers,

wipers, and demisters. Under the

directive, a voiturette approved in one

European country is automatically

marketable in all 14 other member

states.

The critical point, however,

concerning the Japanese kei cars and the

faster class of voiturettes is that they are

not similar to LSVs and their

experiences are not directly relevant.

Their operating characteristics and

environment are so different from those

of LSVs that the experiences of those

foreign cars are not predictive of the

experiences of LSVs. The kei cars and

TQM voiturettes can travel at

approximately twice the speed of LSVs

and have a much longer operating range.

Further, their operating environment is

not nearly so restricted by law as that

of LSVs.

C. Safety Engineering Issues

There were a number of issues

involving scope of the standard and the

equipment that would be required.

1. Speed Range of Motor Vehicles

Subject to This Standard.

a. Minimum Threshold of 20 Miles

Per Hour. The NPRM proposed to

regulate golf cars with a top speed range

of 15 to 25 miles per hour, and other 4-

wheeled motor vehicles, other than

vehicles with work-performing

equipment, with a top speed of up to 25

miles per hour.23 The final rule applies

to a smaller group of vehicles, i.e., 4-

wheeled motor vehicles, other than
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 116/Wednesday, June 17, 1998/Rules and Regulations 33209

24 In submissions made after the NPRM, NGCMA

stated that sales of new golf cars are divided into

two categories; ‘‘fleet golf cars’’ and ‘‘personal golf

cars.’’ Fleet golf cars are sold directly to golf

courses. They comprise approximately 89 percent

of sales. In an April 16, 1998 letter, NGCMA

estimated that fleet golf cars have a maximum speed

of approximately 12 miles per hour or less. Personal

golf cars are sold to individuals, and comprise

approximately 11 percent of sales.

25NHTSA notes that in the 30 years since the

creation of the motor-driven cycle subclass, there

has not been any increase in the level of

horsepower that divides those vehicles from other

motorcycles.

trucks, with a top speed of 20 to 25

miles per hour.

In issuing the NPRM, NHTSA did not

intend to regulate conventional golf

cars. To carry out that intent, the agency

proposed to include only those vehicles

whose maximum speed exceeded 15

miles per hour. That speed was selected

on the basis of information indicating

that fleet and personal golf cars had a

maximum speed of 15 miles per hour.

As noted above, standard Z130.1, the

industry standard for golf cars to be

‘‘used solely on golf courses’’ (paragraph

1.1), contains a specification for

‘‘Maximum vehicle speed’’ (paragraph

9.6.1). That specification states that

when a golf car is operated on a straight

track at maximum speed, once in either

direction, the ‘‘(t)he average speed [of

the two runs] shall not exceed 15 mi/h

(24 km/h)’’ (paragraph 9.6.1.3).

Accordingly, the agency tentatively

concluded that if a golf car had a top

speed greater than 15 miles per hour,

that capability evidenced an intent that

the golf car be operated on the road as

well as on golf courses. Further,

NGCMA stated at the July 25, 1996

public meeting that ‘‘100 percent’’ of the

golf car manufacturers adhered to the

standard. This statement led the agency

to believe that virtually all fleet and

personal golf cars met the industry

standard.

The submissions by the golf car

industry after the NPRM contained

significant new information. While the

pre-NPRM information represented the

annual fleet of new golf cars as an

essentially homogeneous,

undifferentiated collection of vehicles,

the post-NPRM information drew

distinctions between a variety of

subgroups within the new golf car fleet.

One distinction was made between fleet

golf cars and personal golf cars. Another

and more important distinction was

made between the vast majority of golf

cars that have a top speed of about 12

miles per hour versus the much more

limited, but not insignificant number of

golf cars that have a top speed of 15–20

miles per hour.24

In its February 1997 comment on the

NPRM, Club Car, the second largest

member of NGCMA, confirmed that it

produces personal golf cars whose top

speed is between 15 and 20 miles per

hour. It did not specify, however, the

percentage of its personal golf cars with

that top speed. Further, Club Car gave

no indication in that comment that it

produced any fleet golf cars with such

a top speed. However, in response to

this agency’s May 1998 inquiry about

the percentage of fleet and personal golf

cars with a top speed above 15 miles per

hour produced by each of the major

NGCMA members, NGCMA stated in a

telephone conversation on June 3 that 1

percent of Club Car’s fleet golf cars, and

75 percent of its personal golf cars, have

a top speed between 15 and 20 miles per

hour. None of the other large members

produce any golf cars with such a top

speed. Prior to that conversation,

NGCMA had not explicitly stated that

any of its members currently produce

golf cars exceeding 15 miles per hour.

However, NGCMA did suggest in its

post-NPRM submissions that personal

golf cars be defined as having a top

speed between 15 and 20 miles per hour

and explicitly stated that none of its

members are now manufacturing

personal golf cars capable of exceeding

20 miles per hour.

In light of this new information and

on further consideration, the agency has

decided to limit the application of

Standard No. 500 to vehicles whose top

speed is between 20 and 25 miles per

hour. This decision carries out the

agency’s original intent of excluding

virtually all conventional golf cars from

the standard.

The agency believes that 20 miles per

hour is a better dividing line between

vehicles designed for use on the golf

course and vehicles designed for onroad use. The conventional golf cars

whose top speed is between 15 and 20

miles per hour have a body and

understructure ver similar to that of

conventional golf cars whose top speed

is less than 15 miles per hour. Further,

while the speed differential between

those two groups of golf cars creates a

significant difference in their potential

crash energy, the energy in the 15 to 20

mile-per-hour range is still modest

compared to that of LSVs. As noted

above, golf cars with a top speed of less

than 15 miles per hour reportedly have

a top speed of about 12 miles per hour.

Those golf cars with a top speed

between 15 and 20 miles per hour are

believed by the agency to have a top

speed of approximately 17 to 18 miles

per hour.

The practical safety effects of raising

the speed threshold does not appear to

be extensive. Data obtained since the

NPRM regarding the limited number of

fatalities associated with on-road use of

fleet and personal golf cars indicate that

the state and local governments are

adequately providing for the safety of

on-road users of those golf cars. The

agency recognizes that the limited

number may partially reflect the

currently limited extent of general onroad use of golf cars. However, NHTSA

believes that it also reflects the efforts

being made by state and local

governments to regulate the safety of the

on-road use of golf cars. Even as the

number of golf cars used on-road

increases, there will be less reason for

safety concern about vehicles whose

maximum speed is 15 to 20 miles per

hour than about vehicles whose

maximum speed is 20 to 25 miles per

hour. This is because, as also noted

above, the potential crash energy of a

vehicle traveling 20 to 25 miles per hour

is significantly greater than one

traveling at less than 20 miles per hour.

By excluding fleet and personal golf

cars from the standard’s applicability,

NHTSA emphasizes that it has not

decided or implied that these vehicles

should not be subject to any safety

regulation by state or local authorities.

Moreover, since the agency is not

treating those vehicles as motor

vehicles, its standard setting activities

cannot pre-empt any such state or local

regulation. State and local jurisdictions

may continue to adopt such safety

equipment requirements as they deem

appropriate for vehicles, including golf

cars, with a maximum speed of 20 miles

per hour or less.

b. Upper Limit of 25 Miles Per Hour.

NHTSA notes Advocates’ apprehension

that there might be a future increase in

the upper speed threshold for low-speed

vehicles. This issue was discussed in

the City of Palm Desert meeting (see text

of Transcript, beginning at p. 17). There

was no sentiment for increasing the

permissible speed for on-road golf cars

beyond 25 miles per hour. Further,

while the agency cannot predict the

future, it does not contemplate the

possibility that future circumstances

might justify increasing the upper

threshold for LSVs. Even if it did occur,

the changed circumstances would cause

the agency to examine significantly

narrowing the differences between the

safety requirements for LSVs and

passenger cars.25 In this regard, as

NHTSA has already noted above, the

steady increase in Japanese kei car size

and engine displacement has resulted,

effective in October of this year, in the

elimination of any difference between

the frontal crash protection safety

requirements for kei cars and those for

passenger cars. Finally, the agency notes
33210 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 116/Wednesday, June 17, 1998/Rules and Regulations

26 In a May 27, 1998 telephone conversation with

an agency official, Mr. Paul Schwartz, Chairman of

the Transportation Committee, Sun City

Homeowners Association, Inc., said his association

continued to support seat belts. In a May 28, 1998

telephone conversation, Mr. Noel Willis, President

of the Sun City West Property Owners-Residents

Association, said his association has no position on

seat belts in golf cars.

that it would not be appropriate for it to

issue this final rule just because of the

possibility that there may be future

requests for the agency to take

additional actions.

NHTSA is aware that a state

legislature could define NEVs as

vehicles capable of speeds in excess of

25 miles per hour. The agency

emphasizes that the enactment of such

definition would have no impact upon

the Federal definition of LSV, or on the

applicability of Standard No. 500. Any

NEV or other small passenger vehicle

whose maximum speed is higher than

25 miles per hour would not qualify as

an LSV. Accordingly, it would have to

comply with the full range of Federal

motor vehicle safety standards

applicable to its type. As noted above,

such a vehicle would most likely be

classified as a passenger car, and be

subject to the full range of FMVSSs for

passenger cars.

2. Seat belts

The proposed requirement for seat

belts is supported by the two known

manufacturers of NEVs, both of which

advertise their vehicles as being

equipped with seat belts, and is not

opposed by dealers who produce speedmodified golf cars with a top speed

greater than 20 miles per hour.

Based primarily on the fact that the

proposal would have applied to those

golf cars capable, as originally

manufactured, of exceeding 15 miles per

hour, golf car manufacturers and dealers

initially strenuously opposed requiring

seat belts. According to NGCMA:

such a requirement in a golf car as presently

manufactured is not necessarily going to

provide increased safety to occupants but

may enhance the risk of injury or even death

if the occupant is restrained in the vehicle by

a seat belt assembly upon rollover.

Engineering consensus is seat belts on golf

cars are inappropriate as is the case with

motorcycles, ATVs, snowmobiles and

personal watercrafts. An optional passenger

roof may be affixed to a golf car for weather

protection, but the roofs so installed do not

comply with standard ROPS [rollover

protection system] criteria.

Golf cars are equipped with a standard hip

or hand hold restraint located towards the

outside of the seat. However, the hand hold

does not prevent the occupant from jumping

or leaping out of the golf car to avoid further

injury if the golf car is about to roll over. For

this reason, NGCMA submits that in lieu of

a seat belt requirement for golf cars, a hand

hold or hip restraint should be required as set

forth in ANSI/NGCMA Z130.1

In its February 21, 1997 comments on

the NPRM, NGCMA sought a delay in

the implementation of the proposed

standard to give the industry time to

study ‘‘occupant dynamics and a review

of seat belt design and seat belt

mounting and attachment methods.’’ It

estimated that a minimum of 24 to 36

months would be needed for that

purpose.

In its December 22, 1997 submission

to the docket, NGCMA clarified its

previous statements and indicated that

the industry does not manufacture golf

cars that exceed 20 miles per hour, and

asked that golf cars incapable of

exceeding that speed not be required to

be equipped with seat belts.

Subsequently, over 30 dealers and

distributors informed NHTSA that if the

agency limited the seat belt requirement

as requested by NGCMA in its December

1997 letter, they would not oppose the

issuance of an LSV final rule. (March

20, 1998 letter from Eileen Bradner,

Counsel to Club Car, Inc.) Given that

this final rule does not apply to the golf

cars that concerned the industry and its

dealers, i.e., golf cars incapable of

exceeding 20 miles per hour, the golf car

industry’s concerns about seat belts and

golf cars have been resolved.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to

address the safety value of requiring seat

belts in speed-modified and custom golf

cars whose speed capability exceeds 20

miles per hour, thus qualifying them as

LSVs. WLF argued that the use of seat

belts by golf car users would lead to

decreased, instead of increased, safety.

Seat belts reduce occupant ejection

from all types of vehicles. They are

highly effective in preventing occupants

of open vehicles from falling out during

abrupt maneuvers and in preventing or

reducing ejection from both closed and

open body vehicles in crashes. This is

important for safety since ejection onto

hard road surfaces in traffic

substantially increases the likelihood of

death or serious injury.

Support for seat belts in golf cars has

been expressed in Sun City, Arizona,

the scene of four golf car crash fatalities

between 1995 and early 1998, and in

nearby Sun City West. In 1996, the Sun

City West Property Owners-Resident

Association and Sun City Homeowners

Association reportedly responded to a

perceived increase in the number of golf

car crashes by asking local golf car

dealers and distributors to install seat

belts in all golf cars used on public

roads. (The Arizona Republic/The

Phoenix Gazette, July 15, 1996).26 More

recently, in a March 12, 1998 Associated

Press story, Detective Jeffrey Childs of

the Maricopa County (Arizona) Sheriff’s

Department was reported as saying that

use of seat belts in golf cars would

prevent injuries and deaths. Maricopa

County includes Sun City, which, as

noted above, was the site of four golf car

crash fatalities between 1995 and the

date of that story. Detective Childs

reportedly stated his belief that the last

person killed in a Sun City golf car

crash, a woman thrown from her golf car

when it was struck by a passenger car,

would have survived had she been

wearing a seat belt. He also noted more

generally, ‘‘(w)e’ve had incidents where

they’ll take a corner too fast and get

pitched out * * *. At that age, that’ll

kill them.’’

Further, seat belt installation

continues to have support in the City of

Palm Desert. The agency notes that

although California eliminated its

requirement that local golf car

transportation plans include a

requirement for seats belts, the City of

Palm Desert has retained its seat belt

requirement.

The agency concludes that the

primary value of seat belt use in LSVs

will be in reducing the frequency and

severity of injuries in non-rollover

crashes of LSVs by preventing occupant

ejection. NHTSA estimates that 12–13

percent of the fatalities and injuries in

on-road crashes of golf cars involved

ejection of the golf car occupants. The

importance of preventing ejection may

also be seen from examining FARS data.

Although those data relate to vehicles

with higher speed capability and, in

most instances, with enclosed occupant

compartments, they are nevertheless

instructive. Those data show that the

likelihood of a vehicle occupant’s being

killed if ejected is 4 times greater than

the likelihood of being killed if the

occupant remains within the vehicle.

Seat belts are 99 percent effective at

preventing full ejection and 86 percent

effective at preventing partial ejection.

Even if these compelling data are

discounted to reflect differences in the

vehicle populations being compared,

they still lead the agency to determine

that seat belts will enhance the safety of

LSV occupants in non-rollover crashes.

In on-road rollover crashes, the LSV

occupants are likely to be injured,

perhaps seriously, regardless of whether

they are belted or unbelted. The agency

does not believe that the frequency or

severity of on-road rollover injuries will

increase if LSV occupants use seat belts.

The conjectures by some commenters

that it would be valuable to be able to

jump out of an LSV are unsubstantiated

speculation that is especially
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 116/Wednesday, June 17, 1998/Rules and Regulations 33211

unpersuasive given the volume of data

showing that ejection is extremely

dangerous and that seat belts are

remarkably effective at preventing

ejection. NHTSA notes that there may

be less opportunity for, and less

potential benefit from, attempting to

jump out of an overturning LSV

traveling down a road than one being

driven on a golf course. Even if there is

sufficient time for some occupants to

jump out of a golf car during a rollover

at speeds under 15 miles per hour on a

golf course, there is less likely to be an

opportunity to do so during a rollover

at 20 to 25 miles per hour. This seems

especially true if an LSV rolls over on

a road as a result of being struck by a

larger, faster moving vehicle. Further,

jumping out of an LSV traveling down

a road at speeds up to 25 miles per hour

onto the hard surface of that road in

traffic is more likely to cause serious

injury than jumping out of an LSV

traveling at a speed of 15 miles per hour

or less onto the surface of a golf course.

NHTSA also notes that people using

seat belt equipped golf cars need not

wear the seat belts while driving on a

golf course.

Based on these considerations, the

agency concludes that it is desirable to

require seat belts in LSVs. The agency

notes that States and local jurisdictions

are free to require safety belts on golf

cars whose top speed does not exceed

20 miles per hour.

NHTSA will monitor the safety record

of LSVs manufactured in compliance

with Standard No. 500. Although the

agency does not expect that crash data

will bear out WLF’s concerns, NHTSA,

together with State and local authorities,

will respond appropriately if any

changes are needed.

3. Windshields

The golf car industry argued that

installation of an AS–1 windshield

would require modification of the

windshield mounting brackets, would

add weight to the upper area of a golf

car, thereby increasing the likelihood of

its rollover, and would be easily

shattered if struck by a golf ball.

Accordingly, the industry recommended

allowing a ‘‘shatter resistant polymer’’

windshield as a substitute.

Although NHTSA’s reference

standard, the City of Palm Desert

requirements, did not specify the type of

glazing to be used in a windshield,

NHTSA tentatively decided that safety

would be enhanced by requiring a

passenger car-type windshield, i.e., by

requiring AS–1 glazing. One basis for

this tentative decision was that AS–1

glazing is not subject to diminution of

light transparence through haze and

scratches. However, given the industry’s

concern in its comments on the NPRM

that golf car safety might be

compromised were their windshields to

be cracked by errant golf balls, the

agency looked for acceptable

alternatives.

The agency conducted a series of tests

on various types of glazing materials

using a projectile to simulate the impact

of a golf ball. One type was AS–1

glazing. The AS–1 glazing effectively

stopped a golf ball from penetration at

the fastest velocities at which a golf ball

is likely to travel after being driven off

a tee by the average male golfer.

However, the impact caused glass

fragments of the reverse side of the

glazing to be flung into the passenger

compartment, creating a possible safety

risk for occupants.

Another series of tests was conducted

on an AS–6 motorcycle windshield

made of ‘‘Lucite.’’ When this acrylic

plastic windshield was impacted at

approximately 120–125 miles per hour,

it shattered.

Finally, a series of tests were

conducted on polycarbonate plastic

glazing at speeds up to 225 miles per

hour. No penetration, clouding, or

cracking/shattering occurred.

After reviewing these tests and the

ANSI standard, the agency judged that

AS–5 glazing is preferable to AS–6

glazing for use as a golf car windshield.

The specifications for the two types of

glazing are similar except that, unlike

the AS–6 specifications, the AS–5

specifications include an additional

abrasion test that precludes acrylic

plastic windshields. While AS–4 glazing

specifications also include the

additional abrasion test, they do not

include the dart drop test requirement

in the AS–5 specifications. The agency

decided, therefore, to change the

standard to provide LSV manufacturers

with a choice between AS–1 and AS–5

windshields. NHTSA is retaining AS–1

glazing as an option since some LSVs

may not be intended for golf course use

at all. In this regard, the agency notes

that the device for limiting speed to

levels appropriate for golf course use is

not standard equipment, but a several

hundred dollar option, on the vehicles

of one NEV manufacturer. LSV

manufacturers which intend and equip

their vehicles for golf course use as well

as on-road use can choose AS–5 glazing

for their windshields.

4. VINs, Horn, and Warning Label

Bombardier (008) and CHP (013)

recommended that the new class of

motor vehicle be required to have a

Vehicle Identification Number (VIN), as

do other classes of motor vehicles

subject to the FMVSSs. In their opinion,

VINs are necessary for state registration

and licensing, and for effective and

efficient safety enforcement regulation

and recalls. Further, VINs could prove

a useful tool in NHTSA’s monitoring of

the record of LSVs.

The agency agrees with these

comments and has added a VIN to the

list of required safety features. A VIN is

necessary to assure timely and correct

data collection of LSV crashes, and to

assure that the data is electronically

searchable. Additionally, because LSVs,

as motor vehicles, will be subject to the

statutory notification and remedy

(recall) requirements, equipping LSVs

with VINs will also aid in identifying

the vehicle population involved in a

given recall and assuring that owners

are notified of safety-related defects and

noncompliances with this standard.

The commenters suggested that Table

1 of Sec. 565.4, 49 CFR, should also be

amended to allow for the use of special

characters designating a vehicle as an

LSV. This would avoid any confusion in

identifying LSVs and other vehicles in

crash reports. The agency is interested

in this suggestion, and will consider it

as a possible candidate for future

rulemaking.

Both commenters also recommended

that LSVs be required to be equipped

with a horn. The City of Palm Desert

and Roseville, California require a horn

because of the potential safety hazard

posed by silent electric vehicles to other

users of the roadway, such as

pedestrians and bicyclists. The CHP

stated that the horn should be capable

of emitting a sound audible under

normal conditions from a distance of

not less than 200 feet, but that it should

not be unreasonably loud or harsh.

The NPRM did not propose including

a horn because there is no requirement

in the FMVSSs that other motor vehicles

be equipped with one. A horn is an

equipment item that has been standard

equipment on every motor vehicle since

the earliest days of motor vehicles.

Accordingly, there does not appear to be

any need to require one for LSVs.

Moreover, local jurisdictions, such as

the City of Palm Desert, may adopt their

own requirements for a horn, including

requirements regulating its performance.

NHTSA also proposed that LSVs be

equipped with a permanently affixed

label warning the driver against

operating the vehicle at speeds over 25

miles per hour. As stated in the NPRM,

the purpose of the label was to ensure

that the driver of an LSV modified so

that its top speed exceeds 25 mph

would have a permanent reminder that

the vehicle was not designed to be

operated at speeds greater than 25 mph.
33212 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 116/Wednesday, June 17, 1998/Rules and Regulations

The agency has decided not to adopt

this proposal. The underlying problem

is addressed by the prohibition in the

Vehicle Safety Act against commercial

entities making inoperative any safety

feature required by the FMVSSs,

including the feature(s) limiting an

LSV’s top speed to not more than 25

miles per hour. Further, if a person

decided to purchase a speed-modified

LSV, notwithstanding the presence of

the label, having a permanent reminder

is unlikely to dissuade the owner from

operating that vehicle in excess of 25

miles per hour.

5. Other Areas of Safety Performance;

Future Considerations

NHTSA will monitor the safety record

of LSVs as the use of those vehicles

increases. The agency will also consider

whether Standard No. 500 meets the

anticipated safety needs of LSV users.

As the agency noted above, crash

avoidance considerations make it

important that small vehicles be readily

detectable by other drivers in the traffic

stream. Although LSVs are expected to

be somewhat larger than other small

vehicles sharing the roadways with

them, e.g., motorcycles and bicycles, it

is difficult to ensure that drivers of

larger vehicles are aware of smaller

vehicles that may be sharing the

roadway. Smaller vehicles can more

easily get lost in the rearview blind

spots, or be obscured by an A-pillar

when turning in front of larger vehicles

from the opposite direction. To offset

this problem, motorcycles are

manufactured today so that their

headlamps are on (or on and

modulating) when the ignition is on

during daytime operation as a means of

enhancing the conspicuity of cyclists,

who are also advised to wear bright

colored clothing.

NHTSA intends to examine the

Federal lighting requirements presently

applicable to motor driven cycles to

judge their appropriateness and

feasibility for LSVs, and to consider

whether any of the LSV lighting

equipment should be required to meet

performance specifications such as

those of the SAE or those currently

included in Standard No. 108. The

agency will also consider the

suggestions of some commenters. TSEI

(018), CHP (028), Brownell (035), Ziolo

(040), and SMV Technologies (068) were

concerned that, if lighting equipment

were not required to comply with

minimum Federal regulations for signals

and visibility as well as physical

endurance requirements, the danger of

crashes will increase.

A further issue is whether the drivers

of vehicles approaching LSVs from

behind can detect them in a timely

fashion. TSEI also asked for

identification of LSVs with a

conspicuity device that would make it

clear that these vehicles are operating at

lower speeds. Ziolo suggested that they

be equipped with a high-intensity

flashing yellow lamp on the rear or on

the top. SMV Technologies

recommended a retroreflective orange

triangle to be applied front and rear.

NHTSA will examine these suggestions.

For the present, in consideration of

these comments, it has added a rear

reflex reflector to Standard No. 500’s

required lighting equipment.

NHTSA will also further examine

braking performance issues as part of its

crash-avoidance standards review.

The agency is also interested in

considering further the appropriateness

of applying other small-vehicle

standards to LSVs, particularly with

reference to occupant protection in

crashes and safety from propulsion

systems after crashes. The first of these

standards is the golf car industry

standard, Z130.1. Although this

standard is predicated on a vehicle

maximum speed of 15 miles per hour,

the standard contains tests and

procedures that warrant examination

with respect to vehicles with a

maximum speed of 20 to 25 miles per

hour. For example, requirements are

specified for static stability in both

longitudinal and lateral test attitudes

(9.6.3) and service and parking brake

performance (9.6.4). Service brake

performance tests are conducted on a

horizontal flat surface at maximum

vehicle speed. Specifications are also

specified for battery installation (9.7)

whose impact containment is

demonstrated under a dynamic test in

which a golf car is propelled at

maximum speed into a concrete or steel

barrier in both forward and reverse

directions. Golf cars are also subject to

specifications for wiring systems

(paragraph 10.1, for electric-powered

vehicles; paragraph 11.1, for gasolinepowered vehicles) and heat-generating

components (paragraph 10.2, for electric

golf cars; paragraph 11.2 for others).

Gasoline-powered golf cars are also

subject to specifications for fuel systems

(paragraph 11.3) whose impact

containment is demonstrated in frontal

and reverse barrier tests at maximum

speed. These latter include containment

in a roll-over situation.

NHTSA will also follow the ongoing

SAE efforts to develop a standard

applicable to ‘‘closed community

vehicles.’’ It is anticipated that this

standard will address rollover

characteristics of small vehicles with

relatively high centers of gravity, and

the concomitant risk of leaking of fuel

or caustic fluids into the passenger

compartment in the event of a rollover.

Finally, the agency intends to

examine the appropriateness of

specifying strength requirements for seat

belt anchorages in LSVs.

D. Compliance with other Statutory

Requirements Relating to Safety and

with Federal Statutes Regulating NonSafety Aspects of Motor Vehicles

1. Other Statutory Requirements

Relating to Safety

This rulemaking places NEVs and golf

cars capable of exceeding 20 miles per

hour in a new class of ‘‘motor vehicles,’’

and excludes them from the FMVSSs

that they would otherwise have to meet.

Notwithstanding their classification as

LSVs, instead of passenger cars, these

NEVs and golf cars remain subject to

other safety statutes and regulations

implementing Chapter 301 that establish

obligations for manufacturers of ‘‘motor

vehicles,’’ such as the requirement to

file an identification statement under

Part 566, Manufacturer Identification; to

certify vehicles pursuant to Part 567,

Certification; to provide notification and

remedy of safety-related defects and

noncompliances (49 U.S.C. §§ 30118–

30120; Part 573, Defect and

Noncompliance Reports; and Part 577,

Defect and Noncompliance

Notification); to retain records (Part 576,

Record Retention); and to provide

consumer information (Part 575,

Consumer Information Regulations).

However, since LSVs are excluded from

the requirement of Standard No. 110

that they be equipped with tires

complying with Standard No. 109,

NHTSA regards Part 574, Tire

Identification and Recordkeeping, as

inapplicable to manufacturers of LSVs,

notwithstanding that LSVs are ‘‘motor

vehicles.’’

2. Federal Statutes Regulating NonSafety Aspects of Motor Vehicles

NHTSA’s vehicle safety program is

but one of a number of Federal

regulatory programs affecting motor

vehicles. Others include NHTSA’s fuel

economy, theft, property damage

reduction (bumpers), and domestic

content labeling programs, and the

Environmental Protection Agency’s

emissions program. Having been able to

use the discretion granted the agency by

the Vehicle Safety Act to tailor the

FMVSS to the particular safety problems

and compliance capabilities of lowspeed vehicles, NHTSA has considered

whether the Congressional statutes

regulating various non-safety aspects of

motor vehicles give the agency similar
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 116/Wednesday, June 17, 1998/Rules and Regulations 33213

27A manufacturer that produces a total of fewer

than 1000 passenger motor vehicles in a model year

is subject to more limited labeling requirements.

See 49 CFR § 583.5(g).

discretion to determine whether and to

what extent low-speed vehicles should

comply with the requirements of those

statutes.

a. Theft. NHTSA issued Part 541,

Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention

Standard, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Chapter

331, Theft Prevention. The purpose of

the standard is to reduce the incidence

of passenger motor vehicle thefts by

facilitating the tracing and recovery of

parts from stolen vehicles. The standard

seeks to facilitate such tracing by

requiring marking of major component

parts of higher theft vehicle lines.

While LSVs subject to Standard No.

500 would be passenger motor vehicles

under Chapter 331, NHTSA believes

there would not, for the immediate

future, be any reliable way of evaluating

their likely theft rates. This is because

LSVs do not currently exist as a vehicle

class, and they are sufficiently different

from other classes of vehicles to make

comparisons related to theft unreliable.

Thus, it could not be determined

whether their rates were high enough to

subject them to parts marking.

Given that application of the Theft

Prevention Standard is necessarily

dependent on making determinations

concerning theft rates, the agency has

decided not to apply the standard to

LSVs until there is sufficient

information to make such

determinations. Once sufficient

information becomes available, NHTSA

will revisit this issue.

b. Content Labeling. The American

Automobile Labeling Act (AALA),

codified at 49 U.S.C. § 32304, requires

passenger motor vehicles to be labeled

with information about their domestic

and foreign content. More specifically,

the Act generally requires each new

passenger motor vehicle to be labeled

with the following five items of

information: (1) U.S./Canadian parts

content, (2) major sources of foreign

parts content, (3) the final assembly

point by city, state (where appropriate),

and country; (4) the country of origin of

the engine parts, and (5) the country of

origin of the transmission parts. The Act

specifies that the first two items of

information, the U.S./Canadian parts

content and major sources of foreign

parts content, are calculated on a

‘‘carline’’ basis rather than for each

individual vehicle. NHTSA’s

regulations implementing the AALA are

set forth in Part 583, Automobile Parts

Content Labeling.

NHTSA notes that the LSVs subject to

Standard No. 500 come within the

definition of ‘‘passenger motor vehicle’’

under the AALA. Therefore,

manufacturers of LSVs are necessarily

subject to the requirements of Part 583,

subject to certain important limitations

discussed below.

A manufacturer that produces LSVs

from various parts at a final assembly

point is subject to Part 583 in the same

manner as manufacturers of passenger

cars and light trucks. The manufacturer

is required to affix the required label

containing content information to all

new LSVs.27 The manufacturer must

calculate the information for the label

by using information provided to it by

suppliers. Under Part 583, the

manufacturer is required to request its

suppliers to provide the relevant

content information specified in Part

583, and the suppliers are required to

provide the specified information in

response to such requests. The agency

notes that it recently issued a letter of

interpretation (dated March 5, 1998, and

addressed to Erika Z. Jones, Esq.)

concerning how Part 583 applies to

electric vehicles. This letter is available

on NHTSA’s website.

The agency has concluded that Part

583 does not, however, apply to dealers

and entities that modify golf cars so that

their top speed is increased so that it is

between 20 and 25 mph. This

conclusion is based on the overall

structure of the AALA. The agency

notes that it considered a similar issue

in promulgating Part 583. NHTSA

decided that alterers are not covered by

the Act. The agency explained:

‘‘Alterers modify completed vehicles,

after they have left the manufacturer’s

final assembly point. The parts they use

are not considered equipment by [the

AALA], because they are never shipped

to the final assembly point.’’ 59 FR

37321; July 21, 1994. The agency notes

that while the golf cars these dealers

and other entities would be modifying

are not considered motor vehicles prior

to the modification, they are

nonetheless completed vehicles after

they have left the final assembly point.

Therefore, NHTSA believes it is

appropriate to apply the same result as

it reached for alterers.

c. Corporate Average Fuel Economy.

NHTSA observes that LSVs are expected

to have very high fuel economy because

of their small size. Accordingly, a fleet

consisting solely of LSVs should not

have any difficulty meeting the

corporate average fuel economy

standards applicable to passenger motor

vehicles and light trucks pursuant to 49

U.S.C. Chapter 329, Automobile Fuel

Economy. The standards are set forth at

49 CFR Parts 531 and 533. The agency

notes that while it has the responsibility

for setting fuel economy standards, the

procedures for measuring and

calculating fuel economy are established

by EPA. See 49 U.S.C. 32904.

NHTSA enforces the fuel economy

standards based on information

developed by EPA under those

procedures. However, the present EPA

test procedure specifies that test

vehicles must operate during testing at

speeds that are above the capability of

LSVs. Accordingly, the procedure

cannot be used to measure the fuel

economy of these vehicles.

NHTSA will not enforce fuel economy

standards, or regulations related to those

standards (e.g., reporting requirements)

for any vehicles for which EPA does not

have procedures for measuring and

calculating fuel economy.

Manufacturers of LSVs, including

modifiers of golf cars, should contact

EPA concerning their emissions

responsibilities and concerning any

changes in that agency’s procedures for

measuring and calculating fuel

economy.

d. Bumper Standards. Under 49

U.S.C. Chapter 325, Bumper Standards,

NHTSA is required to issue bumper

standards for passenger motor vehicles.

The purpose of that chapter is to reduce

economic loss resulting from damage to

passenger motor vehicles involved in

motor vehicle crashes. Under 49 U.S.C.

§ 32502(c), the agency may, for good

cause, exempt from any part of a

standard a multipurpose passenger

vehicle or a make, model, or class of a

passenger motor vehicle manufactured

for a special use, if the standard would

interfere unreasonably with the special

use of the vehicle.

NHTSA’s regulations implementing

Chapter 325 are set forth in Part 581,

Bumper Standard. The standard applies

to passenger motor vehicles other than

multipurpose passenger vehicles. The

agency has not applied Part 581 to

multipurpose passenger vehicles

because of concerns that the standard

could interfere with the use of these

vehicles, particularly with respect to offroad operation.

In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed to

conclude that LSVs are not passenger

motor vehicles within the meaning of 49

U.S.C. Chapter 325, and that the bumper

standard is therefore not applicable to

LSVs. On further consideration, the

agency has decided that it cannot make

that conclusion consistent with Chapter

325. However, NHTSA has concluded

that the special use rationale for not

applying the Bumper Standard to

multipurpose passenger vehicles also

applies to LSVs subject to Standard No.

500. Many of these vehicles are golf cars
33214 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 116/Wednesday, June 17, 1998/Rules and Regulations

or are largely derived from golf cars. All

or most are currently intended for both

on-road and off-road use. Application of

the Bumper Standard to these vehicles

could interfere with off-road operation,

e.g., the need of these vehicles to

negotiate the uneven terrain of a golf

course. Therefore, the agency finds good

cause for exempting them from part 581.

V. Effective Date.

The agency has decided to make its

vehicle classification changes and new

Standard No. 500 effective upon the

publication of this final rule in the

Federal Register. These actions relieve

a restriction on the manufacturers of

LSVs. They do so by bringing an

immediate end to the regulatory conflict

between State and local laws on the one

hand and Federal laws on the other, and

replacing the current impracticable and

overly extensive set of Federal

requirements with a set that is more

appropriate and reasonable for this new,

emerging class of vehicles. NEV

manufacturers and modifiers of golf cars

wish to have the opportunity to begin

the manufacture and sale of vehicles

complying with the new standard as

soon as possible.

The golf car industry’s initial 36-

month lead time request was based

upon the proposed lower threshold of

15 miles per hour, the industry’s

opposition to seat belts and its wish to

develop and implement an integrated

rollover protection system that might

require modifications to its existing

vehicle designs. In its December 22,

1997 letter, NGCMA shortened the

requested lead time to 6 to 12 months,

provided that seat belts were not

required for their golf cars as originally

manufactured. This request, like the

first, was based on the proposed 15-

mile-per-hour threshold. As noted

above, the lower threshold has been

raised to 20 miles per hour in this final

rule, thus excluding golf cars as they are

now originally manufactured, and

resolving the lead time concerns of the

golf car manufacturers.

Bombardier indicated that its NEV is

equipped to comply with the new

standard, as proposed, and that it

needed no lead time. Information in the

VRTC study indicates that the Global

Electric MotorCars’ NEV complies,

except for red reflex reflectors and

mirrors which can be readily added.

The remaining lead time issue

concerns those golf car dealers who, on

or after the effective date of the final

rule, modify the maximum speed

capability of golf cars so that it is

between 20 and 25 miles per hour. The

salient fact is that this rulemaking

eliminates existing unnecessary

restrictions on those modifications.

Prior to the effective date, those speed

modifications have the effect of

converting the golf cars into passenger

cars, making it necessary for the

modifiers to conform the golf cars to the

FMVSSs for passenger cars. Since such

conformance is not practicable,

modifiers are currently legally unable to

increase the top speed of golf cars above

20 miles per hour. Beginning on the

effective date, the legal obligations of

the modifiers under the Vehicle Safety

Act are significantly reduced. Instead of

being responsible for conforming the

golf cars with the FMVSSs for passenger

cars, the modifiers will be responsible

for conforming them with the less

extensive array of requirements

applicable to LSVs.

In consideration of the foregoing, the

agency has decided to make this final

rule effective upon the publication of

this final rule in the Federal Register.

For the reasons discussed above,

NHTSA finds that there is good cause

for setting an effective date earlier than

180 days after issuance of the final rule

is in the public interest. Accordingly,

the final rule becomes effective upon

publication in the Federal Register.

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This action is not significant under

Executive Order 12866 and has not been

reviewed by the Office of Management

and Budget under that Executive Order.

Further, this action is not significant

under the Department of

Transportation’s Regulatory Policies and

Procedure. NHTSA has prepared and

docketed a final regulatory evaluation

(FRE) for this final rule.

Since LSVs are a new type of motor

vehicle, it is not possible to determine

annual benefit and cost figures. As to

benefits, the agency notes that the

demand for sub-25 mph vehicles is

currently being met primarily by fleet

and personal golf cars and by speedmodified golf cars that were not

originally manufactured for on-road use.

If the agency did not take the actions

specified in this final rule, the demand

would continue to be met in that

manner. The vehicles would be

equipped with at least some of the

safety features required by Standard No.

500, but not seat belts except in the City

of Palm Desert. The issuance of this

final rule ensures that the demand will

be met in the future by vehicles

originally manufactured for on-road use

and equipped with the full array of

safety features required by that

standard.

As to the costs of producing NEVs and

other LSVs in compliance with

Standard No. 500, the significance of

those costs can be fully appreciated only

by comparing them with the costs that

the manufacturers of those vehicles

would have had to bear in the absence

of this rulemaking. If the agency had

adopted the regulatory option of making

no change in its regulations and

standards, LSV manufacturers would

have been subject to the considerably

more costly array of passenger car

standards.

As discussed previously in this

document, manufacturers of both the

Bombardier NEV and Global Electric

MotorCars NEV have designed their

vehicles to incorporate basic safety

equipment such as three-point seat

belts, headlamps, and stop lamps before

NHTSA’s first public meeting in July

1996. In response to the NPRM,

Bombardier termed the City of Palm

Desert’s requirements ‘‘entirely

practicable’’ and remarked that ‘‘Indeed,

Bombardier currently complies with

these existing state safety equipment

requirements’’ (008). Although Global

Electric MotorCars’ predecessor, Trans2,

was silent on the subject, its lack of

comment and request for ‘‘expedited

rulemaking’’ leading to a final rule by

‘‘June 1997’’ has been read to mean that

it, too, found compliance with Standard

No. 500 to be practicable (007).

In NHTSA’s judgment, the final rule

will not affect golf car manufacturers

since it applies only to vehicles with a

top speed of more than 20 miles per

hour and the industry has represented

that it does not manufacture any such

vehicles. Should a golf car ever be

modified to have a top speed capability

of 20 to 25 miles per hour, it would then

be subject to Standard No. 500.

In November 1993, the City of Palm

Desert initiated a survey of golf car

owners who registered their vehicles in

its golf car program. The responses from

61 owners indicated that the cost to

retrofit a golf car with the equipment

prescribed by that city was an average

of $150 in January 1994. At the July

1996 public meeting in the City of Palm

Desert, an Arizona golf car dealer

estimated that the cost of adding the

equipment required in Arizona (which

does not include seat belts) could be as

high as $400.

This latter figure roughly accords with

NHTSA’s own total equipment cost

estimates for taking a golf car that

complies with none of the requirements

in Standard No. 500 and modifying it to

comply with the standard. In the FRE,

the agency estimates $357 for modifying

a golf car to conform to Standard No.

500 with a two-point belt system, and
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 116/Wednesday, June 17, 1998/Rules and Regulations 33215

$370 for achieving conformance with a

three-point belt system (in 1997 dollars).

Either type of belt system is permissible

under the new standard. NHTSA’s cost

estimates, however, do not cover the

cost of modifications that a dealer or

other commercial entity itself may deem

desirable for the on-road use of a golf

car, such as modifications to the brake

system to accommodate faster speeds.

NHTSA estimates that the compliance

costs for the two current makes of NEVs

will be only about $25 since they

already have most of the required

equipment. The additional cost is for

side and rear reflex reflectors, driver or

passenger side mirror, and a vehicle

identification number label.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The agency has also considered the

impacts of this rulemaking action in

relation to the Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

this rulemaking action will not have a

significant economic impact upon a

substantial number of small entities.

The following is NHTSA’s statement

providing the factual basis for the

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

final rule primarily affects

manufacturers of non-conventional

motor vehicles not heretofore regulated

by NHTSA. Under 15 U.S.C. Chapter

14A ‘‘Aid to Small Businesses’’, a small

business concern is ‘‘one which is

independently owned and operated and

which is not dominant in its field of

operation’’ (15 U.S.C. Sec. 632). The

Small Business Administration’s (SBA)

regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a

small business, in part, as a business

entity ‘‘which operates primarily within

the United States.’’

The record of this rulemaking

indicates that there is only one entity in

the United States that intends to

produce an LSV as defined by the final

rule, Global Electric MotorsCars. As

noted in a footnote above, Global

Electric MotorCars has taken over

Trans2 Corporation and will market the

Trans2 as the ‘‘GEM.’’ Therefore, it is

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

second entity that intends to

manufacture LSVs, Bombardier,

operates primarily outside the United

States. There were four golf car

manufacturers who commented on the

NPRM, E-Z-Go Textron, Club Car, Inc.,

Melex, Inc., and Western Golf Car, all

located in the United States. Golf car

manufacturers are not ‘‘manufacturers’’

of LSVs under the final rule because the

record indicates that none produces a

vehicle whose maximum speed exceeds

20 miles per hour.

However, a person who modifies a

golf car so that its maximum speed is

between 20 miles and 25 per hour is a

‘‘manufacturer’’ of an LSV and is legally

responsible for its compliance and for

certifying that compliance. As noted

above in the discussion of the effective

date, the salient fact with respect to the

impact of this rulemaking on modifiers

is that it replaces one set of

requirements with which the modifiers

cannot comply with a set with which

they can comply. Prior to this final rule,

those speed modifications convert the

golf cars into passenger cars, making it

necessary for the modifiers to conform

the golf cars to the FMVSSs for

passenger cars. Since this is not

possible, modifiers have been legally

unable to modify golf cars so that their

top speed exceeds 20 miles per hour.

Beginning on the effective date of this

final rule, the legal obligations of the

modifiers under the Vehicle Safety Act

are significantly reduced. Instead of

being responsible for conforming the

golf cars with FMVSSs for that type of

vehicle, the modifiers are responsible

for conforming them with the less

extensive array of requirements

applicable to LSVs. Further, the

equipment necessary to comply with

Standard No. 500 can be obtained and

added by modifiers readily and at

moderate cost.

Further, small organizations and

governmental jurisdictions will not be

significantly affected. The testimony at

the public meetings and comments to

the docket indicate that the purchasers

of LSVs will be private individuals who

want a small, alternative mode of

transportation instead of a conventional

motor vehicle, as a second vehicle for

use in their immediate residential area.

Nevertheless, the availability of these

small vehicles to small organizations

and governmental jurisdictions may

assist them in reducing costs associated

with their motor vehicle fleets and in

achieving local clean air goals.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The vehicles affected by this final rule

are presently classified as passenger cars

and, as such, are subject to various

information collection requirements,

e.g., Part 537, Automotive Fuel Economy

Reports (OMB Control No. 2127–0019);

Part 566, Manufacturer Identification

(OMB Control No. 2127–0043);

Consolidated VIN and Theft Prevention

Standard and Labeling Requirements

(Parts 541, 565 and 567)(OMB Control

No. 2127–0510); Section 571.205,

Glazing materials (OMB Control No.

2127–0038); Section 571.209, Seat belt

assemblies (OMB Control No. 2127–

0512); Part 573 Defect and

Noncompliance Reports (OMB Control

No. 2127–0004); Part 575, Consumer

Information Regulations (OMB Control

No. 2127–0049); and Part 576, Record

Retention (OMB Control No. 2127–

0042). The final rule removes those

vehicles from the passenger car class

and places them in a new class, i.e.,

low-speed vehicles. As low-speed

vehicles, they remain subject to those

requirements.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism) and

Unfunded Mandates

This rulemaking has also been

analyzed in accordance with the

principles and criteria contained in

Executive Order 12612. NHTSA has

determined that this rulemaking does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment. This final

rule will, as a practical matter, have

only limited effect on state and local

regulation of the safety equipment on

golf cars and NEVs whose top speed

qualifies them as LSVs.

The definition of LSV in Standard No.

500 does not encompass a golf car with

a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour

or less, or a NEV with a maximum speed

of more than 25 miles per hour. Thus,

this final rule has no effect on the ability

of state and local governments to specify

requirements for vehicles other than

LSVs. State and local governments

continue to be able to adopt or continue

to apply any safety equipment standard

it wishes for golf cars with a maximum

speed of 20 miles per hour or less.

However, it does encompass golf cars

and NEVs with a maximum speed

greater than 20 miles per hour, but not

greater than 25 miles per hour. Under

the preemption provisions of 49 U.S.C.

30103(b)(1), with respect to those areas

of a motor vehicle’s safety performance

regulated by the Federal government,

any state and local safety standards

addressing those areas must be

identical. Thus, the state or local

standard, if any, for vehicles classified

as LSVs must be identical to Standard

No. 500 in those areas covered by that

standard. For example, since Standard

No. 500 addresses the subject of the type

of lights which must be provided, state

and local governments may not require

additional types of lights. Further, since

the agency has not specified

performance requirements for any of the

required lights, state and local

governments may not do so either.

NHTSA is not aware of any aspects of

existing state laws that might be

regarded as preempted by the issuance

of this final rule. Those laws do not

contain performance requirements for

the items of equipment required by

Standard No. 500. Further, state and

local governments may supplement
33216 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 116/Wednesday, June 17, 1998/Rules and Regulations

Standard No. 500 in some respects.

They may do so by requiring the

installation of and regulate the

performance of safety equipment not

required by the standard. NHTSA

wishes to make several other

observations regarding the ability of

state and local governments to make

regulatory decisions regarding LSVs.

First, NHTSA recognizes that while

some states and local governments have

taken steps to permit on-road use of golf

cars and LSVs, others have not. In the

agency’s view, this final rule does not

alter the ability of states and local

governments to make that decision for

themselves. Similarly, this rulemaking

has no effect on any other aspect of

State or local regulation of golf carts and

NEVs, including classification for

taxation, vehicle and operator

registration, and conditions of use upon

their state and local roads.

Second, the agency notes that the

issuance of Standard No. 500 does not

require current owners of golf cars

having a top speed between 20 to 25

miles per hour to retrofit those golf cars

with the equipment specified in the

standard. Standard No. 500 applies to

new LSVs only. The decision whether to

require retrofitting of golf cars that are

already on the road remains in the

domain of state and local law.

In issuing this final rule, the agency

notes, for the purposes of the Unfunded

Mandates Act, that it is pursuing the

least cost alternative for addressing the

safety of LSVs. As noted above, the

agency is substituting a less extensive,

less expensive set of requirements for

the existing full array of passenger car

safety standards. Further, the agency is

basing almost all of the requirements of

Standard No. 500 on state and local

requirements for on-road use of golf

cars. Finally, the agency has not, at this

time, adopted any performance

requirements for the required items of

safety equipment other than seat belts.

State and local agencies in California

and Arizona, including the California

Air Resources Board, as well as Sierra

Club California and a Florida State

University professor who analyzed the

deployment of electric cars in the

MetroDade Transit System Station Car

Program, submitted comments

suggesting that the final rule will

encourage the manufacture and use of

electric vehicles and thus have

beneficial environmental effects.

Southern California Edison and the

Arizona Economic Development

Department noted at the first public

meeting that their statements about such

beneficial effects included consideration

of power plant emissions. Commenters

also indicated that any increase in the

number of sub-25 mph vehicles as a

result of this rulemaking is likely to be

primarily in vehicles powered by

electricity as opposed to gasoline. There

is already a strong and growing interest

in sub-25 mph cars that are electric.

Commenters submitted data showing

that over 60 percent of conventional golf

cars are electric and that the percentage

has been fairly steadily increasing in

this decade. Further, both NEVs are

electric.

The agency agrees with these

comments, and believes that the final

rule will have a generally stimulating

effect on the deployment of electric

LSVs. This final rule may also lead to

modifications in the speed of

conventional golf cars, and expanded

use of these vehicles as LSVs. According

to VRTC, these modified vehicles, too,

are likely to be electric vehicles. They

are generally easier to modify than LSVs

with internal combustion engines to

gain cost-effective, significant increases

in speed.

It is the judgment of the agency that

this rule will not result in significant

impacts to the environment, within the

meaning of National Environmental

Policy Act. The increased use of zeroemission electric vehicles, in lieu of

vehicles with internal combustion

engines, is likely to have a beneficial

effect on the environment, particularly

in urban corridors where air pollution is

often greatest. However, inasmuch as

LSVs are specialty vehicles with a

relatively limited niche market, the

environmental effects are necessarily

limited in scope.

Civil Justice

The final rule does not have any

retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C.

30103, whenever a Federal motor

vehicle safety standard is in effect, a

state may not adopt or maintain a safety

standard applicable to the same aspect

of performance which is not identical to

the Federal standard. Section 30163 sets

forth a procedure for judicial review of

final rules establishing, amending, or

revoking safety standards. That section

does not require submission of a

petition for reconsideration or other

administrative proceedings before

parties may file suit in court.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor

vehicles, Incorporation by reference.

49 CFR Part 581

Imports, Motor vehicles,

Incorporation by reference.

In consideration of the foregoing, 49

CFR parts 571 and 581 are amended as

follows:

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

1. The authority citation for part 571

continues to read as follows:

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

30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

2. Paragraph 571.3(b) is amended to

add a definition of ‘‘low-speed vehicle’’

and to revise the definitions of

‘‘multipurpose passenger vehicle,’’ and

‘‘passenger car,’’ to read as follows:

§ 571.3 Definitions.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

Low-speed vehicle means a 4-wheeled

motor vehicle, other than a truck, whose

speed attainable in 1.6 km (1 mile) is

more than 32 kilometers per hour (20

miles per hour) and not more than 40

kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour)

on a paved level surface.

* * * * *

Multipurpose passenger vehicle

means a motor vehicle with motive

power, except a low-speed vehicle or

trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or

less which is constructed either on a

truck chassis or with special features for

occasional off-road operation.

* * * * *

Passenger car means a motor vehicle

with motive power, except a low-speed

vehicle, multipurpose passenger

vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed

for carrying 10 persons or less.

* * * * *

3. A new section 571.500 is added to

read as follows:

§ 571.500 Standard No. 500; Low-speed

vehicles.

S1. Scope. This standard specifies

requirements for low-speed vehicles.

S2. Purpose. The purpose of this

standard is to ensure that low-speed

vehicles operated on the public streets,

roads, and highways are equipped with

the minimum motor vehicle equipment

appropriate for motor vehicle safety.

S3. Applicability. This standard

applies to low-speed vehicles.

S4. (Reserved.)

S5. Requirements.

(a) When tested in accordance with

test conditions in S6 and test

procedures in S7, the maximum speed

attainable in 1.6 km (1 mile) by each

low-speed vehicle shall not more than

40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per

hour).

(b) Each low-speed vehicle shall be

equipped with:

(1) headlamps,
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 116/Wednesday, June 17, 1998/Rules and Regulations 33217

(2) front and rear turn signal lamps,

(3) taillamps,

(4) stop lamps,

(5) reflex reflectors: one red on each

side as far to the rear as practicable, and

one red on the rear,

(6) an exterior mirror mounted on the

driver’s side of the vehicle and either an

exterior mirror mounted on the

passenger’s side of the vehicle or an

interior mirror,

(7) a parking brake,

(8) a windshield of AS–1 or AS–5

composition, that conforms to the

American National Standard Institute’s

‘‘Safety Code for Safety Glazing

Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles

Operating on Land Highways,’’ Z-26.1–

1977, January 28, 1977, as

supplemented by Z26.1a, July 3, 1980

(incorporated by reference; see 49 CFR

571.5),

(9) a VIN that conforms to the

requirements of part 565 Vehicle

Identification Number of this chapter,

and

(10) a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt

assembly conforming to Sec. 571.209 of

this part, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies,

installed at each designated seating

position.

S6. General test conditions. Each

vehicle must meet the performance limit

specified in S5(a) under the following

test conditions.

S6.1. Ambient conditions.

S6.1.1. Ambient temperature. The

ambient temperature is any temperature

between 0 °C (32 °F) and 40 °C (104 °F).

S6.1.2. Wind speed. The wind speed

is not greater than 5 m/s (11.2 mph).

S6.2. Road test surface.

S6.2.1. Pavement friction. Unless

otherwise specified, the road test

surface produces a peak friction

coefficient (PFC) of 0.9 when measured

using a standard reference test tire that

meets the specifications of American

Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM) E1136, ‘‘Standard Specification

for A Radial Standard Reference Test

Tire,’’ in accordance with ASTM

Method E 1337–90, ‘‘Standard Test

Method for Determining Longitudinal

Peak Braking Coefficient of Paved

Surfaces Using a Standard Reference

Test Tire,’’ at a speed of 64.4 km/h (40.0

mph), without water delivery

(incorporated by reference; see 49 CFR

571.5).

S6.2.2. Gradient. The test surface has

not more than a 1 percent gradient in

the direction of testing and not more

than a 2 percent gradient perpendicular

to the direction of testing.

S6.2.3. Lane width. The lane width is

not less than 3.5 m (11.5 ft).

S6.3. Vehicle conditions.

S6.3.1. The test weight for maximum

speed is unloaded vehicle weight plus

a mass of 78 kg (170 pounds), including

driver and instrumentation.

S6.3.2. No adjustment, repair or

replacement of any component is

allowed after the start of the first

performance test.

S6.3.3. Tire inflation pressure. Cold

inflation pressure is not more than the

maximum permissible pressure molded

on the tire sidewall.

S6.3.4. Break-in. The vehicle

completes the manufacturer’s

recommended break-in agenda as a

minimum condition prior to beginning

the performance tests.

S6.3.5. Vehicle openings. All vehicle

openings (doors, windows, hood, trunk,

convertible top, cargo doors, etc.) are

closed except as required for

instrumentation purposes.

S6.3.6. Battery powered vehicles. Prior

to beginning the performance tests,

propulsion batteries are at the state of

charge recommended by the

manufacturer or, if the manufacturer has

made no recommendation, at a state of

charge of not less than 95 percent. No

further charging of any propulsion

battery is permissible.

S7. Test procedure. Each vehicle must

meet the performance limit specified in

S5(a) under the following test

procedure. The maximum speed

performance is determined by

measuring the maximum attainable

vehicle speed at any point in a distance

of 1.6 km (1.0 mile) from a standing start

and repeated in the opposite direction

within 30 minutes.

* * * * *

PART 581—BUMPER STANDARD

4. The authority citation for part 581

is revised to read as follows:

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

32502, 32504; delegation of authority at 49

CFR 1.50.

5. Section 581.3 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 581.3 Application.

This standard applies to passenger

motor vehicles other than multipurpose

passenger vehicles and low-speed

vehicles as defined in 49 CFR part

571.3(b).

Issued on: June 9, 1998.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator

[FR Doc. 98–16003 Filed 6–12–98; 10:00 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P