30848 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules

SUMMARY: The purpose of the notice is

to inform the general public of a

meeting that will be held by the FederalState Joint Board on universal service.

DATES: The Federal-State Joint Board in

CC Docket 96–45 will hold an Open

Meeting on Wednesday, June 19, 1996 at

9:00 a.m.

ADDRESSES: in Room 856 at 1919 M

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Irene Flannery, Accounting and Audits

Division, Common Carrier Bureau, at

(202) 418–0844.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: At the

meeting, the Federal-State Joint Board

will hear from two panels of experts

addressing universal service issues set

forth in Section 254 of the

Telecommunications Act. In addition,

the Federal-State Joint Board will

consider whether to extend the two-year

indexed cap on the rate at which the

Universal Service Fund may grow.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–15339 Filed 6–12–96; 4:23 pm]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Parts 571 and 581

[Docket No. 96–65; Notice 1]

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards Bumper Standard

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public meetings;

request for comments.

SUMMARY: This document announces

public meetings to be held in Palm

Desert, California, and Washington, DC,

at which NHTSA will seek information

on the appropriate classification and

safety regulations for golf carts and

other small, light-weight vehicles that

are capable of being driven on the

public roads. This document also

invites written comments on these

subjects.

DATES: The public meeting in Palm

Desert, California, will be held on

Thursday, July 18, 1996, at 1:00 p.m.

The public meeting in Washington, DC,

will be held at 9:00 a.m. on Thursday,

July 25, 1996. An agenda for each

meeting will be made based on the

number of persons wishing to make oral

presentations and will be available on

the day of the meeting. Those wishing

to make oral presentations at each

meeting should contact Z. Taylor

Vinson, at the address or telephone

number listed below, by the close of

business July 11, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Public Meetings: The first

public meeting will be held at the City

of Palm Desert Council Chambers,

73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,

California. The second public meeting

will be held at DOT headquarters, Nassif

Building, Room 6200, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, D.C. Written

Comments: Written comments may be

submitted at any time before or after the

meetings, but not later than August 8,

1996. They should be sent to the Docket

Section, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, Room 5109, 400

7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590,

ATTN: Docket No. 96–65; Notice 1.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Z.

Taylor Vinson, Office of Chief Counsel,

NHTSA, Room 5219, 400 7th Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone

202–366–5263).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

As discussed below in more detail,

vehicles such as golf carts have not been

regulated by NHTSA because they were

not being used on the public roads.

Even where a vehicle is being used on

the roads, NHTSA has not regulated it

if it was configured differently from

passenger cars or light trucks, and if it

had a top speed of 20 mph or less.

However, the agency has become aware

that the use and design of some of these

vehicles are evolving in previously

unanticipated ways. Although golf carts

have traditionally been limited in their

operations to golf courses, a number of

states have taken legislative actions that

permit the use of golf carts on the public

roads at speeds up to 25 mph. In

addition, there appears to be a growing

interest worldwide in small vehicles of

somewhat unusual configurations that

are capable of exceeding 20 mph, and

that are intended for on-road use as city

or commuter cars. While some new golf

cart-like vehicles do not really resemble

very small passenger cars, neither do

they resemble the traditional golf cart.

The agency therefore deems it timely

to review its historical position in light

of this evolving situation. To aid it in its

review, NHTSA has decided to hold two

public meetings to receive the

comments of local elected and law

enforcement officials, manufacturers,

individual citizens who use these

vehicles, public interest groups, and

other interested persons on safety and

regulatory issues affecting golf carts and

other light-weight limited-speed

vehicles.

II. Legal Considerations

A. Federal Law

Title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 grants

NHTSA regulatory authority over

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

are subject to the Federal motor vehicle

safety standards promulgated by

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

and to the notification and remedy

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

‘‘motor vehicle’’ is a vehicle

‘‘manufactured primarily for use on the

public streets, roads, and highways’’

(Sec. 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

Sec. 30102(a)(6) dates from 1969, and

addressed the status of mini-bikes.

NHTSA said that the capability of a

vehicle to be operated on the public

roads would be an important criterion

in determining whether it was a ‘‘motor

vehicle’’, but that test would not be

reached if there is clear evidence as a

practical matter that the vehicle was not

being used on the public roads. In

NHTSA’s view, ‘‘in the case of selfpropelled riding mowers, golf carts, and

many other similar self-propelled

vehicles, such clear evidence exists.’’

Thus, the agency declined to regulate

golf carts.

Without such clear evidence, NHTSA

said that it would initially defer to the

manufacturer’s judgment that a vehicle

was not a ‘‘motor vehicle’’ unless ‘‘a

substantial portion of the consuming

public’’ was operating the vehicle on the

public roads. In borderline cases,

NHTSA set forth criteria it would

employ in determining whether a

particular vehicle is a ‘‘motor vehicle.’’

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:

(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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules 30849

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 motorized equipment

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 approximate size and

height of a golf cart.

On the other hand, in 1995, NHTSA

informed Goodlife Motors Corporation

that its ‘‘super golf car’’ was a motor

vehicle because it had a top speed of 29

mph and its configuration resembled

that of a prototype Volkswagen

passenger car. NHTSA is aware that

several companies want to manufacture

small commuter-type battery-powered

vehicles which they call ‘‘Neighborhood

Electric Vehicles’’ (‘‘NEV’’) whose

configuration may or may not be

abnormal, and whose top speed may be

as much as 35 mph. This type of

vehicle, too, is a ‘‘motor vehicle’’ under

NHTSA’s existing interpretations. As

such, it must comply with all applicable

Federal motor vehicle safety standards

adopted by NHTSA. Moreover, pursuant

to 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1), states may not

prescribe any non-identical standards

that are applicable to an aspect of

performance covered by the NHTSA

standards.

B. State Laws

1. California

a. Definitions of ‘‘motor vehicle’’ and

‘‘golf cart’’

Since 1959, the California Vehicle

Code (‘‘CVC’’) has defined a motor

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

defines a golf cart as ‘‘a motor vehicle

having not less than three wheels in

contact with the ground, having an

unladen weight less than 1,300 pounds

which is designed to be and is operated

at not more than 25 miles per hour and

designed to carry golf equipment and

not more than two persons, including

the driver’’ (CVC Sec. 345).

b. 1994 Cal SB 2610 and 1995 Cal AB

110

In 1992, California amended its

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

establish a Golf Cart Transportation

Pilot Program for the City of Palm Desert

(CSHC Secs. 1930–37). The 1992 law

was replaced in 1994 by SB 2610 which

added Chapter 6, CHSC, to establish a

‘‘Golf Cart Transportation Plan’’

applicable to Palm Desert and the City

of Roseville.

The 1994 provision, Chapter 6, was

amended in 1995 by AB 110 to apply to

any city or county in California. Chapter

6 as amended by AB 110 allows local

jurisdictions to establish a Golf Cart

Transportation Plan area in which golf

carts are permitted to operate on ‘‘golf

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

shared with pedestrians, bicyclists, and

other motorists in the plan area’’ (CSHC

1951). Each plan must include

minimum design criteria for safety

features on golf carts. Only seat belts

and covered passenger compartments

are specifically required, but other

safety features mentioned in the law

that a plan ‘‘may include’’ are

headlamps, turn signals, mirrors, stop

lamps, and windshields.

A plan under the California law must

also include a permit process for golf

carts to ensure that they meet the

minimum design criteria, and minimum

safety criteria for golf cart operators. At

a minimum, an operator must have a

valid California driver’s license and

carry a minimum amount of insurance.

In addition, the law requires Golf Cart

Transportation Plans to allow only carts

equipped with the requisite safety

equipment to be operated on ‘‘separated

golf cart lanes’’ identified in the Plan.

Lane striping on the pavement surface is

apparently sufficient for a lane to

qualify as a ‘‘separated golf cart lane.’’

Even though these are separated lanes,

they are not ‘‘dedicated’’ ones. In

addition to golf carts operating at speeds

up to 25 mph, ‘‘other motorists’’ (which

NHTSA assumes to be operators of

conventional vehicular traffic such as

cars, trucks, and buses) may also operate

at speeds up to 25 mph in these lanes.

In summary, through its Vehicle Code

and Streets and Highway Code,

California now has in place a regulatory

scheme under which golf carts may use

‘‘separated’’, limited-speed portions of

the public roads at speeds up to 25 mph

when equipped with the safety features

required by local authorities. Thus,

unless NHTSA modifies its existing

interpretation, golf carts or other

vehicles designed for use in such

jurisdictions that are capable of

operating at speeds above 20 mph are

‘‘motor vehicles’’, subject to the Federal

motor vehicle safety standards.

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

Federal standards would preempt the

local requirements referred to in the

California statutes.

2. Legislation in Other States

In Arizona, Senate Bill 1298 was

enacted in 1996. It permits NEVs to be

operated at speeds up to 25 mph on

public roads with posted speeds of not

more than 35-mph. The law does not

require either that separated lanes be

created or that the NEVs be operated in

those lanes only. Florida House Bill

1329, which has passed both Houses of

the Florida Legislature, would also

permit increased use of golf carts on

public roads.

III. Expression of Support by State

Officials and Others

NHTSA has received letters from

several elected officials in California

asking the agency to support the

concept of golf cart transportation plans

and the use of NEVs at speeds up to 25

mph on public roads. The California

officials who seek NHTSA’s support for

the plans have represented that they

have not identified any incidents

involving golf carts to justify safety

concerns. NHTSA’s public meeting in

Palm Desert will provide a forum for the

expression of views by local officials

responsible for the implementation of

golf cart transportation plans and

enforcement of traffic and safety laws,

as well as by citizens who use golf carts

or NEVs pursuant to such plans. The

meeting will also allow officials from

NHTSA and other interested Federal

agencies to examine at first hand the

practical details of an operating golf cart

transportation plan, such as

infrastructure requirements and traffic

flow.
30850 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules

IV. Market Forces

Another purpose for the public

meetings will be for NHTSA to achieve

a better understanding of the market and

the vehicles that may emerge to serve

the consumer preferences reflected in

the legislative developments in

California, Arizona, and Florida.

At least one specialty manufacturer,

Bombardier, Inc. (Bombardier) has

informed NHTSA that it would like to

enter the market for a ‘‘new and growing

segment of the transportation fleet: lowpowered electric vehicles.’’ It has

developed an NEV with a top speed of

25 mph for this market, and believes

that its vehicle

will provide a low cost, low speed, zero

emissions mode of localized transportation to

meet the special needs of retirees, older

Americans and others living in gated

communities for travel within their

community or for limited activities such as

local golfing and other recreation-related or

short distance trips.

According to Bombardier, municipal

governments endorse the concept as a

way of helping them meet Clean Air Act

mandates for National Ambient Air

Quality Standards by eliminating the

polluting effects of short distance

automobile trips.

Bombardier has asked NHTSA for an

interpretation that the NEV it wishes to

manufacture and market in these

communities is not a ‘‘motor vehicle’’

for purposes of the Federal motor

vehicle safety standards. NHTSA will

address this and other issues relating to

the appropriate regulatory treatment of

golf carts and other small low-speed

vehicles after considering the oral

presentations and comments made in

response to this notice.

V. Comments

It is in the context discussed above

that NHTSA will reexamine its current

interpretation of ‘‘motor vehicle’’ to

determine the reasonable and

appropriate treatment under Federal law

of golf carts, NEVs, and other low-speed

vehicles. NHTSA invites interested

persons to present facts and legal

arguments directed to the issues on

which NHTSA seeks information.

The agency seeks information on the

following topics:

1. Current and anticipated state and

municipal regulations, including

infrastructure requirements, relating to

the use of public roads by golf carts or

NEVs at speeds between 20 and 35 mph.

2. The text of any existing or proposed

state or local safety standards applicable

to golf carts, NEVs, and other low-speed

vehicles.

3. The views of owners and users of

golf carts, NEVs, and other low-speed

vehicles.

4. Any data relating to on-road safety

of golf carts, NEVs, and other low-speed

vehicles.

5. The views of law enforcement,

safety, and health officials concerning

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

other low-speed at various speeds.

6. The views of manufacturers of golf

carts, NEVs, and other low-speed

vehicles as to the burdens of compliance

with Federal motor vehicle safety

standards and other regulations.

7. The views of commenters as to

safety and bumper standards that would

be reasonable, practicable, and

appropriate for golf carts, NEVs, and

other low-speed vehicles.

8. The views of state and local

officials as to Federal regulation of golf

carts, NEVs, and other low-speed

vehicles.

9. The views of other affected

associations, advocacy groups, business

entities, and individuals.

Written statements should be as

specific as possible and provide the best

available supporting information.

Suggestions should be accompanied by

a rationale for the suggested action and

a forecast of the expected consequences

of that action.

VI. Procedural Matters

The agency intends to conduct the

meetings informally so as to allow for

maximum participation by all who

attend. Interested persons may ask

questions or provide comments during

any period after a person has completed

his or her presentation if there is

sufficient time available, as determined

by the presiding official. If time permits,

persons who did not ask prior to the

meeting for an opportunity to speak, but

would like to make a statement, will be

afforded an opportunity to do so, at the

discretion of the presiding official.

Those speaking at the public meeting

should limit their presentations to 20

minutes. If the presentation will include

slides, motion pictures, or other visual

aids, please so inform the contact

person identified above so that the

proper equipment may be made

available. Presenters are asked to submit

at least one copy of their presentation to

the presiding official for inclusion in the

public record.

A schedule of participants making

oral presentations will be available in

the designated meeting room before the

beginning of the meeting. NHTSA will

place a copy of any written statement in

Docket No. 96–65; Notice 1. The public

may inspect the Docket for comments

and statements which may be received

before or after the meeting. A verbatim

transcript of the meeting will be

prepared and also placed in the NHTSA

docket as soon as possible after the

meeting.

Attendance at the meeting is not a

prerequisite for the submission of

written comments. NHTSA invites

written comments from all interested

parties. It is requested but not required

that 10 copies be submitted.

If a commenter wishes to submit

certain information under a claim of

confidentiality, three copies of the

complete submission, including

purportedly confidential business

information, should be submitted to the

Chief Counsel, NHTSA, Room 5219, at

the street address given above, and

copies from which the purportedly

confidential information has been

deleted should be submitted to the

Docket Section. A request for

confidentiality should be accompanied

by a cover letter setting forth the

information specified in the agency’s

confidential business information

regulation (49 CFR Part 512.)

All comments received before the

close of business on August 8, 1996,

will be considered in formulating a

decision on the issues raised. After the

closing date, NHTSA will continue to

file relevant comments and information

in the docket as it becomes available. It

is therefore recommended that

interested persons continue to examine

the docket for new material.

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

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50.

[Docket No. 96–65, No. 1]

Issued: June 12, 1996.

Barry Felrice,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 96–15332 Filed 6–14–96; 9:42 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P