Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Proposed Rules 55801 

Date Location Contact information 

Cisco Pittsburgh, 323 North Shore Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 

15212, POC: Tom Schweizer, 412–237–6200 (main bldg 

phone).

October 14, 2008 .... Via Webcast: 7 a.m. Mountain Daylight Savings Time ......... Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances 202–693– 

9440. 

Cisco Englewood (Denver), 9155 East Nichols Avenue, 

Suite 400, Englewood, Colorado 80112, 720–875–2900 

(main bldg phone), POC: Shannon Gonzales.

Persons may participate via audio 

only at the following locations. At these 

locations persons will not be able to 

make oral presentations. 

Date Location Contact information 

October 14, 2008 .... Via Audio: 9 a.m. Eastern Daylight Savings Time ................ Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances 202–693– 

9440. 

The National Mine Health and Safety Academy, 1301 Airport Road, Beaver, WV 25813.

October 14, 2008 .... Via Audio: 8 a.m. Central Daylight Savings Time ................. Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances 202–693– 

9440. 

Coal Mine Safety and Health, Coal District 11 Office, 135 

Gemini Circle, Suite 213, Birmingham, AL 35209.

Persons will need an ID to enter all 

locations and may be subject to a 

security check. 

The hearing will begin with an 

opening statement from MSHA, 

followed by an opportunity for members 

of the public to make oral presentations. 

Requests to speak at the hearing should 

be made at least 5 days prior to the 

hearing date. Requests to speak may be 

made by telephone (202–693–9440), 

facsimile (202–693–9441), electronic 

mail zzMSHA-comments@dol.gov or 

mail (MSHA, Office of Standards, 

Regulations, and Variances, 1100 

Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, 

Arlington, Virginia 22209–3939). 

Because members of the public will be 

able to make oral presentations via 

videoconference at several locations, for 

scheduling purposes, MSHA encourages 

all parties wishing to speak to notify the 

Agency in advance. 

Any unallocated time at the end of the 

hearing will be made available to 

persons making same-day requests to 

speak. Same-day requestors will speak 

in the order that they sign in at the 

hearing. At the discretion of the 

presiding official, the time allocated to 

each speaker for their presentation may 

be limited. Speakers and other attendees 

may also present information to the 

MSHA panel for inclusion in the 

rulemaking record. 

The hearing will be conducted in an 

informal manner. Formal rules of 

evidence and cross examination will not 

apply. The hearing panel may ask 

questions of speakers. Speakers may ask 

questions of the hearing panel. MSHA 

will make a transcript of the hearing, 

post it on MSHA’s Web site http:// 

www.msha.gov, and include it in the 

rulemaking record. A link to the 

complete webcast will be placed on 

MSHA’s Web site several days after the 

hearing. 

MSHA will accept post-hearing 

written comments and data for the 

record from any interested party, 

including those not presenting oral 

statements, by midnight Eastern 

Daylight Savings Time on October 29, 

2008. 

Dated: September 22, 2008. 

Richard E. Stickler, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety 

and Health. 

[FR Doc. E8–22679 Filed 9–23–08; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4510–43–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2006–24488] 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Low Speed Vehicles 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Denial of petition for 

reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: This document responds to a 

petition for reconsideration of our 2006 

final rule increasing the maximum gross 

vehicle weight rating (GVWR) for low 

speed vehicles (LSVs) to 3,000 pounds. 

The agency established a GVWR limit 

(initially set at 2,500 pounds) in order 

to provide an objective means to 

delineate between vehicles for which 

the limited LSV requirements are 

appropriate and those that can be 

designed to meet the full set of Federal 

motor vehicle safety standards. Our 

2006 final rule increased the limit to 

3,000 pounds, in order to accommodate 

the heavier weight of load-carrying 

LSVs and electric batteries. A petition 

for reconsideration was received from 

Electronic Transportation Applications 

(ETA), which seeks to further increase 

the GVWR limit for electric-powered 

LSVs to 4,000 pounds, as well as to add 

additional regulations to regulate 

braking performance and tire 

specifications. The agency is denying 

the petitioner’s request for the reasons 

discussed in this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

For technical issues: Gayle Dalrymple, 

Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, 

NVS–123, National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration. Telephone: 202– 

366–5559. Facsimile: 202–493–2739, 

e-mail gayle.dalrymple@nhtsa.dot.gov. 

For legal issues: Mr. Ari J. Scott, 

NHTSA Office of the Chief Counsel. 

Telephone: (202) 366–2992. Facsimile: 

(202) 366–3820, e-mail 

ari.scott@nhtsa.dot.gov. 

Both officials can be reached by mail 

at the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background of the LSV Rulemakings 

II. Petition for Reconsideration 

III. Agency Response 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

55802 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

1 71 FR 20026; Docket No. NHTSA–06–24488. 2See 62 FR 1077, January 8, 1997. 

a. Rationale for 3,000 Pound GVWR 

i. Limitation of LSVs to Appropriate 

Vehicles 

ii. Importation of Foreign Vehicles as LSVs 

b. Technology-Neutral Regulation 

IV. Conclusion 

I. Background of the LSV Rulemakings 

NHTSA established Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 

500, ‘‘Low speed vehicles,’’ in 1998 in 

response to the rising use of ‘‘golf cars’’ 

and neighborhood electric vehicles 

(NEVs). See 63 FR 33194. This new 

FMVSS and vehicles class definition 

responded to the growing public interest 

in using small vehicles to make short 

trips for shopping, social, and 

recreational purposes, primarily within 

retirement or other planned, selfcontained communities. The definition 

of an LSV established in that 

rulemaking was, ‘‘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. 

In 2005, NHTSA published a final 

rule amending the definition of LSVs by 

dropping the restriction on trucks, and 

instead establishing a 2,500 pound 

maximum GVWR. See 70 FR 48313. 

This allowed small vehicles designed 

for work-related applications within the 

intended communities, such as 

landscaping or delivery purposes, to be 

included within the definition of an 

LSV, without opening the category to 

unintended vehicles, such as streetsweepers or speed-modified passenger 

cars. Additionally, in 2006, in response 

to petitions for reconsideration from 

Dynasty Electric Car Corporation and 

Global Electric Motorcars (GEM), both 

manufacturers of electric LSVs, NHTSA 

increased the maximum GVWR for LSVs 

to 3,000 pounds. This was done, in part, 

to ‘‘level the playing field’’ between 

electric and gasoline-powered LSVs, by 

allowing for the additional weight in 

batteries required by electric vehicles. 

See 71 FR 20026. 

II. Petition for Reconsideration 

ETA, a corporation involved in 

providing vehicle testing services for the 

Department of Energy, submitted a 

petition for reconsideration, dated June 

2, 2006, asking NHTSA to reconsider its 

decision on April 19, 2006 that 

amended FMVSS No. 500 to raise the 

maximum permissible GVWR for a LSV 

to 3,000 pounds. ETA requested that 

NHTSA accommodate the weight of 

batteries by raising the maximum 

GVWR of electric-powered vehicles still 

further to 4,000 pounds.1 To address 

some of the side effects of that increase, 

ETA also suggested that the agency 

consider adopting brake performance 

and tire weight rating requirements for 

LSVs. 

In its petition, ETA stated that there 

is a growing demand to reduce or 

eliminate the numbers of petroleumfueled vehicles normally used in 

restricted areas, but that these vehicles 

need to be licensed for use on public 

roads as these areas are situated in or 

around public roadways. Further, it 

suggested that there is an increasing 

need in these operating environments 

for truck-like vehicles designed to carry 

cargo, such as for landscaping and 

maintenance matters. 

ETA argued that the current GVWR 

limitation of 3,000 pounds hinders the 

development of electric LSVs that can 

function as trucks. Specifically, because 

of the stop-and-go driving conditions in 

which these trucks operate, the wear on 

their electric batteries necessitates 

extremely large batteries. According to 

ETA, these batteries can weigh as much 

as 600 pounds or more. Given the 

current GVWR limit and the need to 

provide cargo capacity, ETA said the 

weight of the batteries curtails the 

weight of the chassis. For example, ETA 

stated that an LSV with a 661 pound 

battery and a cargo capacity of 1,000 

pounds cannot have a chassis weight 

greater than 1,339 pounds under the 

current GVWR limit. According to the 

petition, this creates a major hindrance 

to designing cargo carrying electric 

LSVs. ETA stated that this puts electricpowered LSVs at a disadvantage relative 

to gas-powered LSVs, which use 

gasoline as fuel, and thus can have more 

substantial chasses while remaining 

under the 3,000 pound limit. 

ETA also argued that allowing larger 

vehicles to be classified as LSVs would 

spur production of vehicles in the 

small-truck market, because the need 

created by the current GVWR limit to 

design vehicles that comply with all 

FMVSS standards adds a substantial 

cost to vehicles produced in low 

quantities. ETA claimed that it could 

cost over $50 million to fully design and 

certify a vehicle to comply with the full 

requirements of the FMVSSs, a large 

burden on manufacturers of vehicles 

produced in small quantities. Finally, 

ETA claimed that the increase in the 

GVWR limitation would allow the 

importation and conversion of foreign 

highway speed vehicles that do not 

meet the FMVSSs for cars or trucks to 

meet LSV requirements. 

III. Agency Response 

After carefully considering ETA’s 

petition to increase the GVWR limit for 

electric-powered LSVs, we have decided 

to deny the petition. There are two 

primary reasons for this decision. The 

first is that we believe that vehicles over 

3,000 pounds are capable of complying 

with the full requirements of the 

FMVSSs. Secondly, in line with our 

policy in establishing a GVWR limit for 

LSVs in the first place, we believe that 

increasing the GVWR limit would 

encourage the use of LSVs in 

circumstances where it could pose an 

unreasonable risk to safety. These 

reasons are described at greater length 

below. 

a. Rationale for 3,000 Pound GVWR 

As stated above, the definition of 

LSVs originally did not contain a 

maximum GVWR. The definition for an 

LSV established in that final rule was: 

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. 

The logic behind this rulemaking was 

that these vehicles were so small that 

they could not practicably meet the full 

regimen of FMVSSs required of other 

motor vehicles.2 Trucks were excluded 

because in all of the public hearings and 

docket submissions relating to LSVs and 

their uses proponents described them as 

passenger vehicles. Also, there were 

existing large, slow-moving workrelated trucks, such as street sweepers, 

that already met FMVSSs for their 

vehicle class that would have become 

excluded from those FMVSSs had 

trucks not been excluded from the 

definition of LSVs. 

When reconsidering the LSV 

definition, NHTSA was presented with 

arguments that small, work-related 

trucks would be used in the same 

environments as passenger-carrying 

LSVs. The agency decided that this was 

a desirable option, and modified the 

definition of LSVs accordingly. A 

GVWR limitation was substituted for the 

‘‘other than a truck’’ portion of the 

definition for several reasons. The first 

was to provide an objective means for 

delineating between the vehicles for 

which the LSV requirements are 

appropriate (i.e., those vehicles that are 

too small to meet the full FMVSS 

requirements) and those vehicles that 

can be designed to meet the full set of 

FMVSSs. The second reason was that 

the low GVWR limit prevents attempts 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Proposed Rules 55803 

3 70 FR 48316. 

4 63 FR 33194. 

5 68 FR 68321. 

6See 70 FR 48317. 

7This figure is derived from subtracting a 1,000- 

pound cargo capacity and a 661-pound battery from 

the 3,000-pound maximum GVWR. 

8 70 FR 48316. 

to circumvent FMVSSs for cars, trucks, 

and multipurpose passenger vehicles by 

applying the LSV classification to 

vehicles types that are able to meet the 

standards.3 These reasons are discussed 

in more detail below. 

i. Limitation of LSVs to Appropriate 

Vehicles 

In denying this petition to further 

increase the maximum GVWR for LSVs, 

the agency believes it highly important 

to reiterate the rationale for classifying 

vehicles as LSVs in the first place. In the 

original rulemaking, we noted that 

several States, such as Florida and 

California, had passed legislation 

permitting golf carts and NEVs to use 

public roads in some areas. However, 

because NHTSA considered those 

vehicles which traveled 20 mph or 

faster to be ‘‘motor vehicles,’’ they could 

not be manufactured unless they met 

the FMVSSs for passenger cars. 

Therefore, as we stated in the 1998 final 

rule, ‘‘[t]his 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.’’ 4

At the heart of the rulemaking 

regarding LSVs is that they were too 

small to meet the requirements of 

passenger cars, and would only be used 

in controlled, low-speed environments, 

where the risk of collision would be 

small. ETA’s recommendation to 

increase the GVWR limits conflict with 

NHTSA’s rationale for establishing the 

GVWR limitation with regard to this 

rationale. The contradiction is the fact 

that vehicles with a GVWR of over 3,000 

are simply not too small to meet the full 

FMVSSs. In the NPRM discussing the 

rationale for a 2,500 pound GVWR limit, 

the agency presented a list of the 

GVWRs of a variety of fully FMVSScompliant passenger cars and SUVs. 

This list is repeated here (this relates to 

model year 2003): 5

Vehicle Type GVWR 

in pounds 

Honda Insight .................................................................................................. Passenger car .............................................................. 2,212 

Toyota Echo .................................................................................................... Passenger car .............................................................. 3,010 

Hyundai Accent ............................................................................................... Passenger car .............................................................. 3,310 

Chevrolet Tracker ........................................................................................... SUV .............................................................................. 3,483 

Honda Civic ..................................................................................................... Passenger car .............................................................. 3,485 

Toyota Prius .................................................................................................... Passenger car .............................................................. 3,615 

Ford Focus ...................................................................................................... Passenger car .............................................................. 3,620 

Toyota RAV4 ................................................................................................... SUV .............................................................................. 3,841 

Jeep Wrangler ................................................................................................. SUV .............................................................................. 4,450 

Ford Ranger .................................................................................................... Extended cab pick-up .................................................. 4,800 

A 2,500-pound GVWR limit was 

selected because it was lighter than all 

FMVSS-compliant passenger cars and 

SUVs, with the exception of the Honda 

Insight. It should be noted that the 

2,500-pound limit considers the weight 

of the gasoline-powered Honda Insight, 

and then adds about 300 pounds to 

account for the additional weight of 

electric batteries over fuel.6 As we 

stated above, the 2006 rule extended the 

limitation to 3,000 pounds. This, it was 

noted, still means that the Honda 

Insight was the only fully FMVSScompliant passenger car to be lighter 

than the heaviest LSV. 

However, if ETA’s suggestion that 

electric LSVs have a maximum GVWR 

of 4,000 pounds, then they could be 

considerably heavier than many 

passenger cars, and even some SUVs, 

even factoring in a substantial 

allowance for the weight of the electric 

batteries. This would be inconsistent 

with NHTSA’s rationale to make LSVs 

subject to less stringent safety 

requirements than passenger cars, in 

large part because they are ‘‘too small’’ 

to meet those requirements. 

A second reason why raising the 

GVWR for electric LSVs is contrary to 

NHTSA’s policy is that this would 

encourage the development of heavier, 

more substantial LSVs. In its petition, 

ETA stated that the current 3,000-pound 

GVWR limit limits the chassis to less 

than 1339 pounds.7 This, it claims, will 

result in a ‘‘lightweight chassis’’ that 

will ‘‘not provide much occupant 

protection in the event of a crash.’’ ETA 

continues by saying that ‘‘manufacturers 

should be encouraged to increase 

chassis mass and, therefore, strength to 

ensure proper occupant safety.’’ 

In the 2003 final rule, in which 

NHTSA provided the rationale to 

change to a GVWR-based definition of 

LSVs, we said: 

We believe that, as LSVs become equipped 

with additional amenities, such as air 

conditioning, solid doors, and batteries for 

extended range, they lose the basic 

characteristics of a special vehicle designed 

for transportation within a planned, limited 

environment. Instead, these vehicles take-on 

the profile of a small, traditional passenger 

car vehicle, and in some cases, may be 

marketed as a small passenger car or as a 

substitute for a small passenger car. Even 

with a 25 mph speed limitation, we are 

concerned that LSVs that have characteristics 

and attributes of traditional passenger cars 

will be more likely to be used outside of 

planned communities and instead, more 

regularly mix with traffic.8

ETA’s rationale for increasing the 

weight of LSVs accomplishes the very 

end that NHTSA sought to avoid by 

establishing the 2,500-pound, and later 

3,000-pound, GVWR limitation. As ETA 

correctly points out, raising the 

maximum weight of electric LSVs 

would encourage the development of 

larger, sturdier models. This would, in 

turn, likely extend their use into areas 

beyond those that NHTSA intended 

LSVs to go, namely, outside of 

controlled, low-speed environments. 

While NHTSA has no desire to restrict 

the use of electric vehicles, as opposed 

to gasoline-powered vehicles, on the 

majority of public roads, we believe that 

the vehicles using those roadways 

should meet the full set of FMVSS 

requirements. 

ii. Importation of Foreign Vehicles as 

LSVs 

A second argument put forth in ETA’s 

petition for reconsideration is that 

increasing the maximum GVWR for 

electric LSVs would allow the 

importation of foreign electric vehicles 

without their having to conform to the 

full FMVSS requirements. As ETA 

states, ‘‘[t]hese vehicles are appealing as 

conversions to LSVs as they offer 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

55804 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

9 70 FR 48316. 

10 70 FR 48317. 

11See GEM Web site, available at http:// 

www.gemcar.com. 

durable construction and the ability to 

carry heavier loads at lower costs than 

a full-speed [vehicle] or purposedesigned LSV.’’ While we agree that 

acceding to ETA’s request would have 

this effect, it is again an effect we hope 

to avoid. 

To begin, we note that foreign made 

on-road motor vehicles, that are capable 

of high-speed use, are not eligible to be 

transformed into LSVs via the adoption 

of a speed-limiting governor. In a June 

28, 2000 letter of interpretation to Mr. 

Thomas E. Dahl on this issue, we stated 

there are no circumstances under which 

the addition of a speed governing device 

to a high-speed vehicle would make the 

vehicle meet the definition of an LSV. 

After explaining that we established the 

LSV class because the vehicles were too 

small to meet the full FMVSS 

requirements, we stated that a common 

feature of this class appeared to be that 

they were capable of a maximum speed 

of 25 mph as designed and 

manufactured. This is still our 

interpretation of the regulation. 

Furthermore, the agency has stated 

several times that one concern we have 

regarding the LSV classification is that 

it could be used as a mechanism to 

import foreign motor vehicles without 

first making them conform to the 

FMVSSs. For example, in the 2005 final 

rule, we stated that ‘‘[t]he [2,500-pound] 

GVWR limit prevents attempts to 

circumvent FMVSSs for cars, trucks, 

and multipurpose passenger vehicles by 

applying the LSV classification to 

vehicle types that are able to meet the 

[full FMVSS] standards.’’ 9 ETA’s 

recommended 4,000-pound limit would 

permit the result we intended to 

prevent, and we view that as a reason 

to deny the petition. 

b. Technology-Neutral Regulation 

ETA’s final argument is that the 

current GVWR limitation provides an 

advantage to gasoline-powered vehicles 

over electric vehicles. The agency is 

aware that, with current technology, the 

batteries needed to power an electric 

vehicle weigh substantially more than 

the fuel needed to power an internal 

combustion engine. This was 

considered to some extent in our 

original rulemaking establishing the 

2,500-pound GVWR limit in 2005, and 

considered extensively in our 2006 rule 

increasing that limit to 3,000 pounds, a 

rule undertaken at the behest of two 

electric LSV manufacturers. 

In the petitions that led to the 2006 

rulemaking, NHTSA was presented with 

two differing solutions to this problem. 

The first, presented by Dynasty Electric 

Car Corporation, recommended a 2,500- 

pound GVWR restriction for internal 

combustion engine LSVs and a 2,800- 

pound GVWR restriction for electric 

LSVs. The second, recommended by 

GEM, requested that the GVWR limit be 

raised to 3,000 pounds for all LSVs, as 

this would accommodate electric LSVs 

with a cargo-carrying capacity of 1,000 

pounds. 

In the 2005 rule establishing the 

GVWR limitation, we discussed why we 

were not establishing different GVWR 

limitations for electric and gasolinepowered vehicles, despite the issue 

regarding the weight of the batteries. We 

noted that each propulsion type has its 

own advantages. While gasolinepowered vehicles are lighter, ‘‘the fact 

that electric LSVs are successful in the 

market indicates that any advantage of 

the [internal combustion] vehicle due to 

greater load capacity under our GVWR 

restriction will be overcome by other 

attractions of the electric vehicle to 

consumers.’’ 10 ETA, perhaps 

inadvertently, cites several of these 

advantages in its petition. These include 

the high cost of gasoline, government 

mandates to reduce or eliminate 

petroleum-fueled vehicles from fleets, 

and the environmental benefits of 

electric vehicles. Therefore, we do not 

believe it is necessary to increase the 

regulatory complexity by setting 

different GVWR limitations based on 

propulsion method. 

Finally, we believe that 3,000 pounds 

is a level at which electric LSVs that 

perform cargo-carrying work are 

practicable to build. In the 2006 final 

rule, we quoted one of the petitioners, 

GEM, where it stated: 

All that GEM seeks in the U.S. market is 

a comparable ‘‘level playing field’’ by 

allowing LSV trucks to weigh as much as 

3000 pounds GVWR, which would 

accommodate the electric batteries and an 

appropriate payload for LSV trucks. 

We note that GEM currently produces a 

cargo-carrying electric LSV with a 

GVWR of 3,000 pounds or less. We 

noted on GEM’s Web site the GEM eL 

XD, which has a GVWR of 3,000 

pounds, a payload capacity of 1,450 

pounds, a top speed of 25 mph, and a 

range of up to 40 miles.11 This example 

illustrates that the current GVWR limit 

permits the development of cargocarrying, electric LSVs. 

IV. Conclusion 

For the reasons stated above, we are 

denying ETA’s petition to increase the 

maximum allowable GVWR to 4,000 

pounds for electric LSVs. Furthermore, 

because we are not increasing the 

maximum allowable GVWR, we are 

denying ETA’s recommendation to 

establish brake requirements and tire 

weight rating requirements in FMVSS 

No. 500. 

Issued on: September 19, 2008. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. E8–22736 Filed 9–25–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0154] 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Medium Speed Vehicles 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Denial of petition for 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document denies 

petitions for rulemaking submitted by 

Environmental Motors, and Porteon 

Electric Vehicles, Inc. and Mirox 

Corporation. The petitioners requested 

that NHTSA commence rulemaking to 

create a new class of motor vehicles 

known as medium speed vehicles, 

which would have a maximum speed 

capability of 35 mph. The petitioners 

contemplated that these vehicles would 

be subject to a set of safety standards 

greater than those that apply to low 

speed vehicles but substantially less 

than the full set of safety standards that 

apply to other light vehicles such as 

passenger cars. The petitioners cited a 

number of reasons in support of their 

petition, the most significant of which 

related to potential environmental 

benefits. After carefully reviewing the 

petitions, we are denying them because 

the introduction of such a class of motor 

vehicles without the full complement of 

safety features required for other light 

vehicles such as passenger cars would 

result in significantly greater risk of 

deaths and serious injuries. While 

NHTSA agrees with the importance of 

environmental issues, the agency 

believes that it is neither necessary nor 

appropriate to significantly increase the 

risk of deaths and serious injuries to 

save fuel. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

For technical issues: Gayle Dalrymple, 

Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, 

NVS–123. Telephone: 202–366–5559; 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS