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

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Proposed Rules 55805 

1This petition can be viewed at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, docket #NHTSA–2008–0019. 

facsimile: 202–493–2739; e-mail 

gayle.dalrymple@nhtsa.dot.gov. 

For legal issues: Mr. Ari J. Scott, 

NHTSA Office of the Chief Counsel, 

NCC–112. 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. Overview 

II. Petitions for Rulemaking 

III. Low Speed Vehicles 

IV. State Legislation on MSEVs and Relevant 

Federal Requirements 

V. Agency Response to Petitions 

A. The rationale for applying a limited set 

of safety standards to LSVs is not 

relevant to MSVs 

B. The traffic environment in which MSVs 

would likely travel is an environment for 

which the full set of the Federal motor 

vehicle safety standards is needed to 

prevent fatalities and serious injuries 

C. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to 

significantly increase the risk of deaths 

and serious injuries to save fuel 

D. Other issues 

VI. Conclusion 

I. Overview 

NHTSA has received three petitions 

for rulemaking, from Environmental 

Motors, Porteon Electric Vehicles, Inc. 

and Mirox Corporation, requesting that 

the agency commence rulemaking to 

create a new class of motor vehicles 

known as medium speed vehicles 

MSVs. While the specific requests vary, 

they essentially ask the agency to 

conduct rulemaking to exclude smaller 

light vehicles that would currently be 

classified as passenger cars, 

multipurpose passenger vehicles 

(MPVs) or trucks from many or most of 

the Federal motor vehicle safety 

standards, if their speed capability is 35 

mph or less. The vehicles would instead 

be subject to a set of safety standards 

greater than those that apply to low 

speed vehicles (LSVs) but substantially 

less than the full set of safety standards 

that apply to other light vehicles. 

The petitioners made a variety of 

arguments in support of their requests, 

the most significant of which related to 

environmental benefits, including 

facilitating the development of electric 

vehicles and fuel savings. They argued 

that because LSVs are not permitted to 

have a speed capability greater than 25 

mph, they cannot safely keep up with 

traffic in urban areas, and a need 

therefore exists for vehicles with a 

higher speed (35 mph) capability. The 

petitioners also noted that two States 

have passed laws that purport to allow 

medium speed electric vehicles to 

operate on certain public roads. 

After carefully considering 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 would result in significantly 

greater risk of deaths and serious 

injuries. We address the petitioners’ 

arguments in detail in the rest of this 

document, but note the following points 

in this overview. 

The petitioners appear to view MSVs 

as a variant of LSVs, i.e., a special class 

of small motor vehicles that would not 

be required to meet the full complement 

of the Federal motor vehicle safety 

standards. However, the rationale for 

applying a limited set of safety 

standards to LSVs is not relevant to 

MSVs. 

NHTSA issues different safety 

standards for different types of motor 

vehicles. The agency established the 

special category of motor vehicles called 

LSVs to accommodate the use of small 

golf cars and other vehicles primarily 

intended for use in controlled, lowspeed communities, such as retirement 

communities. In order to qualify as an 

LSV under the agency’s definition, a 

vehicle must, among other things, have 

a speed capability no higher than 25 

mph. LSVs are subject to a limited set 

of safety measures in FMVSS No. 500, 

including requirements related to the 

installation of lamps, mirrors, seat belts 

and a windshield. However, LSV’s are 

not subject to most of the standards to 

which other light vehicles such as 

passenger cars are required to comply, 

including the rigorous crashworthiness 

standards. 

One of the principal concerns raised 

by the petitioners is that the 25 mph 

speed limitation that applies to LSVs 

prevents these vehicles from keeping up 

with traffic in urban areas. However, the 

25 mph limitation reflects the fact that 

NHTSA designed the set of safety 

standards that apply to LSVs for 

vehicles intended to be used in 

controlled, low speed environments. 

Vehicles with a speed capability above 

25 mph are more likely to be driven 

outside controlled, low speed 

environments, and the limited LSV 

safety requirements are not appropriate 

for such vehicles. 

The petitioners appear to assume that 

the full set of safety standards 

applicable to other light vehicles such 

as passenger cars would not be 

appropriate for MSVs, i.e., small 

vehicles with a speed capability of 35 

mph. However, the traffic environment 

in which these vehicles would likely 

travel, including, e.g., urban roads with 

a speed limit of 35 mph or 45 mph, is 

an environment for which the full set of 

the Federal motor vehicle safety 

standards is needed to prevent fatalities 

and serious injuries. MSVs would be 

traveling in mixed traffic at speeds in 

which crashes posed a risk of serious 

injury or fatality and in which safety 

features such as frontal and side air bags 

significantly reduced that risk. Also, a 

number of the crash test requirements 

included in our safety standards 

simulate crashes in this higher speed 

environment. We note that the 

petitioners did not provide analysis 

demonstrating why any of the Federal 

motor vehicle safety standards are not 

needed for MSVs. 

NHTSA shares the concerns of the 

petitioners about the importance of 

environmental issues and saving fuel, 

and notes that it is currently engaged in 

rulemaking in which it has proposed to 

substantially increase average fuel 

economy standards for passenger cars 

and light trucks. We also note that a 

number of smaller vehicles have been 

introduced in recent years that are 

certified to comply with the full set of 

Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 

In addition, the current unprecedented 

cost of fuel is forcing manufacturers to 

improve fuel efficiency and reduce 

vehicle size without Federal mandates. 

While we appreciate the importance 

of environmental issues, NHTSA does 

not believe that it is necessary or 

appropriate to significantly increase the 

risk of deaths and serious injuries to 

save fuel by introducing a new class of 

motor vehicles that does not provide 

adequate safety protection. 

II. Petitions for Rulemaking 

Environmental Motors 

One of the petitions received by 

NHTSA was from Environmental 

Motors, an electric vehicle (EV) dealer 

located in Glendale, CA.1 That company 

stated that the petition was being sent 

as part of an effort by a coalition 

interested in getting zero emission, 

energy-efficient vehicles on the road in 

a safe and timely manner. The coalition 

includes EV manufacturers and sellers 

(including Miles Electric Vehicles, Zenn 

Motor Company, e-ride Industries, 

Dynasty Electric Car Corp., Boshart 

Engineering, Free Drive EV, Inc, CleanTech LLC, LE Electric Automobiles, 

LLC, and Electrovaya, Resort Vehicles, 

Inc.), the City of Santa Monica, CA, the 

University of California, Santa Barbara, 

and the Sustainable Transport Club of 

Santa Monica, CA. All of these groups 

sent letters supporting Environmental 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

55806 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

2This petition can be viewed at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, docket #NHTSA–2008–0019. 

3This petition can be viewed at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, docket #NHTSA–2008–0019. 

Motors’ petition, which were attached to 

the petition. 

The petition itself requested that 

NHTSA establish a Medium Speed 

Vehicle (MSV) standard. According to 

the petition, the promulgated MSV 

standard should incorporate ‘‘the right 

mix of safety features,’’ although it did 

not specify what it considered a right 

mix. In doing so, the petition requested 

that NHTSA consider a number of 

factors. These include: 

• The fact that MSV legislation has 

been passed by several States. 

• Alleged safety benefits of vehicles 

being able to keep up with traffic. 

• That a MSV class would assist in 

the development of electric vehicles. 

• That most MSVs would be electric, 

and noting the environmental benefits 

of electric vehicles. 

Additionally, in letters of support, 

various supporters added additional 

arguments. These included: 

• The fact that full-speed electric 

vehicles are expensive. 

• Safety disbenefits incurred by the 

fact that some individuals modify LSVs 

to increase their speed. 

• As an alternative to creating a class 

of MSVs, NHTSA could increase the 

speed limitation for LSVs. 

Mirox Corporation 

Another petition that NHTSA 

received was from Mirox Corporation 

(Mirox).2 Mirox’s petition was more 

detailed than that of Environmental 

Motors, but also suggested that NHTSA 

create a class of MSVs with a maximum 

top speed of 35 mph. 

Mirox requested that NHTSA define a 

MSV as a vehicle with: (1) A maximum 

speed of 30–35 mph, a maximum GVWR 

of 3,000 lbs. for cargo-carrying vehicles, 

or 2,500 lbs. for vehicles with 

passenger-carrying capacity only; (3) has 

three or four wheels; and (4) a limited 

number of equipment and bumper 

requirements. These requirements are 

more stringent than those required for 

LSVs, but substantially less than those 

required for other light vehicles such as 

passenger cars. Most prominently, 

Mirox would exclude MSVs from the 

requirements of FMVSS Nos. 138, 202a, 

and 208. The petitioner’s request is 

explained in more detail below. 

Mirox presents a variety of reasons for 

recommending its MSV classification. 

Some of these are similar to those 

identified by Environmental Motors, but 

some are unique. The following is a 

summary of the arguments put forth by 

Mirox: 

• MSVs are a viable alternative to 

motorcycles, including enclosed, threewheeled motorcycles, which are 

currently subject to a very limited array 

of safety standards. Mirox notes that the 

rate of motorcycle fatalities has been 

increasing, and argues that the use of 

MSVs could alleviate this. Mirox also 

argues that MSVs would provide better 

protection from weather and outside 

conditions than motorcycles, and are 

therefore likely to be used more often. 

Additionally, Mirox states that MSVs 

would be easier to drive than 

motorcycles, which would also help 

reduce injuries. 

• MSVs are a better alternative to 

LSVs for use in driving in urban 

environments. Mirox states that due to 

speed limitations, LSVs are unsuited to 

driving in urban conditions, as they 

impede traffic flow and have limited 

acceleration potential. Mirox also argues 

that drivers will prefer MSVs as defined 

by the petitioner, as they will offer more 

protection from outside conditions and 

be equipped with a wider array of safety 

features than LSVs. 

• Mirox expounds on the 

environmental and economic benefits of 

increased fuel economy for MSVs over 

passenger cars. It argues that because 

most MSVs will be electric, they will 

not consume fuel while idling, which is 

common in the urban environments that 

Mirox believes will be the primary 

environment for MSVs. 

• Like Environmental Motors, Mirox 

points to the adoption of MSEV statutes 

in Montana and Washington, and argues 

that Federal regulations should be 

changed to sanction vehicles built in 

accordance to those statutes. 

• Mirox cites the use of 

‘‘quadricycles’’ in Europe, and argues 

that similar vehicles should be 

permitted in the U.S. as well. Mirox 

asserts that European experience, 

especially in France, has shown that the 

quadricycle class of vehicles is the 

safest of all vehicle classes, and that 

their drivers had fewer accidents than 

the average driver of a full-sized car. 

In its petition, Mirox recommended a 

specific, detailed definition for MSVs. 

While similar in nature to that for an 

LSV, Mirox’s definition contains more 

specific safety requirements. We note 

that, while it espoused the benefits of 

electric power, unlike the Montana or 

Washington statutes, Mirox’s 

recommended definition would include 

gasoline-powered MSVs. 

Specifically, Mirox’s recommended 

definition of medium-speed vehicle is: 

A self-propelled, four-wheeled or threewheeled motor vehicle, equipped with a roll 

cage or crush-proof body design, whose 

speed attainable in one mile is more than 

thirty miles per hour but not more than 

thirty-five miles per hour on a paved level 

surface. Each Medium-speed vehicle shall at 

a minimum be equipped with [the] following 

safety equipment that [conforms] to [the] 

existing FMVSS and current applicable SAE 

standard: 

• Headlamps as per FMVSS No. 108 

• Front and rear turn signal lamps (SAE I) 

(49 CFR 571.108) 

• Taillamps (SAE T), (49 CFR 571.108) 

• Stop lamps (SAE S), (49 CFR 571.108) 

• Reflex reflectors: one red on each side as 

far to the rear as practicable, one amber on 

each side as far to the front as practicable 

(SAE A) 

• Side marker lights, one red on each side 

as far to the rear as practicable, one amber 

on each side as far to the front as practicable 

(SAE P) 

• 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 (49 

CFR 571.111) 

• A parking brake (49 CFR 571.135) 

• A windshield of AS–1 or AS–5 

composition, that conforms to the American 

National Standards Institute’s ‘‘Safety Code 

for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing 

Motor Vehicles Operating on Land 

Highway,’’ Z–26.1–1977, January 28, 1977, as 

supplemented by Z26.1a, July 3, 1980 (49 

CFR 571.205) 

• A VIN that conforms to the requirements 

of 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification 

Number 

• A Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly 

conforming to FMVSS No. 209, installed at 

each designated seating position, and whose 

mounting complies with FMVSS No. 210 

• Bumper system; both front and rear that 

conforms to 49 CFR Part 581 

• Audible Warning Devices; Horn and 

Reverse Warning Beeper 

• If the vehicle is electrically powered it 

shall conform to FMVSS No. 305 

• A GVWR of less than 1,361 kilograms 

(3,000 pounds) if the vehicle is designed with 

substantial cargo-carrying capacity (i.e., 

vehicles intended for carrying goods), or 

1,134 kilograms (2,500 pounds) if the vehicle 

is designed solely for transport of passengers. 

Additionally, if the Medium-speed vehicle 

contains any equipment that is referenced in 

any of the following FMVSS[s], such 

equipment or features shall [conform] to all 

the requirements of the applicable FMVSS: 

FMVSS Nos. 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 

108, 109, 110, 111, 113, 116, 118, 124, 135, 

139, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 209, 

210, 212, 214, 216, 219, 225, 301, 302, 304, 

305, and 401. 

Porteon Electric Vehicles, Inc 

The last petition received by NHTSA 

was from Porteon Electric Vehicles, 

Incorporated of Portland, Oregon.3 This 

petitioner plans to market an electric car 

designed from the ground up rather than 

retrofit an imported vehicle by removing 

the IC engine and replacing it with an 

electric motor. The petitioner is 

concerned, ‘‘that unregulated growth 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Proposed Rules 55807 

4 63 FR 33208. 

5 63 FR 33208. 

6See 63 FR 33207. 

7We note that Sun City is located in Arizona, the 

only State that allowed NEVs to travel on any street 

with a speed limit of 35 mph or less. 

could create safety issues and concerns 

that negatively impact and cause severe 

damage to a new growth industry that 

provides real and significant solutions 

to our country and our planet’s key 

issues.’’ This petitioner envisions a 

Medium Speed Vehicle class that 

‘‘would essentially be the same as the 

LSV regulations with the exception of 

the top speed of 35 miles per hour and 

additional vehicle requirement to 

increase the safety of margin [sic] for 

rollover, stopping, acceleration, and 

avoidance maneuvering.’’ The petitioner 

lists these additional vehicle 

requirements as: Ability to maintain 35 

mph on a level grade, ability to maintain 

30 mph up an 8 percent grade, a 

minimum width of 55 inches, a ‘‘coil 

over shock’’ suspension, four-wheel 

hydraulic disc or drum brakes, and 

three-point automotive seat belts, in 

addition to the requirements that 

already exist for LSVs in FMVSS No. 

500. The petitioner also states, 

‘‘Additional testing of the vehicles 

should also be considered, including 

crush zones with a 2.5mph ‘no damage’ 

requirement. A full frontal crash should 

be required to meet safety standards 

between 17–18 mph, which is a 

derivative of full speed automobiles 

being crash tested at 35 mph.’’ The 

petitioner does not state where the no 

damage crush zones would be on the 

vehicle, how they would be measured, 

or which safety standards would be 

tested at 17 or 18 miles per hour. 

Porteon believes the new medium 

speed vehicle class is necessary because 

LSVs currently travel, with their top 

speed of 25 mph, on streets with speed 

limits up to 35 mph and normal traffic 

flow is impeded by these vehicles. 

MSVs, with their top speed of 35 mph, 

‘‘would create a more cohesive traffic 

environment for mixed use vehicles.’’ 

III. Low Speed Vehicles 

In 1998, NHTSA established Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 

No. 500, ‘‘Low speed vehicles,’’ in 

response to growing interest in using 

golf cars and other similar-sized, 4- 

wheeled vehicles, including 

Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs), 

to make short trips for shopping, social, 

and recreational purposes primarily 

within retirement or other planned 

communities with golf courses. See 63 

FR 33194. The definition of 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 

removing 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. 

In conceiving the concept of the LSV 

as a small vehicle that would not be 

subject to the same stringent safety 

criteria as other vehicles, a critical 

concept was that it would not ordinarily 

mix with other traffic. In our 1998 rule 

establishing the category of LSVs, 

NHTSA explained in the summary that 

the rule: 

[R]esponds to a growing public interest in 

using golf cars 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. [emphasis 

added] 

NHTSA’s detailed analysis, as 

explained in the preamble of the 1998 

final rule, recognized the importance of 

the fact that under most conditions, 

LSVs would not intermingle with 

regular automobile traffic, and the 

occasions where they would mix would 

be in controlled, low-speed 

environments. NHTSA stated that 

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.4

Additionally, in the 1998 final rule, 

NHTSA analyzed the Fatal Analysis 

Reporting System (FARS) data regarding 

fatalities involving golf cars. It was 

found that of the nine reported fatalities, 

eight of them involved a collision with 

a car or truck. This further underscored 

the importance of driving environment. 

In the 1998 final rule, the agency 

studied the use of NEVs in various 

municipalities that permitted them to 

travel on public roads. In that notice, we 

stated that ‘‘the driving environment [of 

LSVs] should be appropriate to the 

vehicle and its characteristics. Limiting 

LSV use to low-speed city and suburban 

streets is necessary, but does not 

eliminate the safety risks.’’ 5 NHTSA 

analyzed the State laws governing the 

on-road permissibility of NEVs in 

various States. Of the 12 States 

discussed, only one State (Arizona) 

permitted NEVs to travel on any road 

with a speed of 35 mph or less. The 

other 11 States (California, Nevada, New 

Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Illinois, 

Minnesota, Iowa, Florida, Georgia, and 

Texas) restricted NEVs to roads 

specifically designated by State and 

local governments.6

One portion of the analysis discussed 

possible reasons for the disparity of 

fatalities between Sun City 7 (which had 

four NEV fatalities) and the City of Palm 

Desert (which had zero). We noted that: 

The City of Palm Desert has a more 

controlled environment than Sun City for 

golf car use. The City of Palm Desert permits 

on-road 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 on-road 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. 

Based in part on this analysis, as well 

as our other observations, we concluded 

that operating environment played an 

important role in determining the 

benefits of establishing the LSV 

classification, as well as determining 

what safety standards should apply to 

that class. While NHTSA does not 

regulate the driving environment (such 

decisions are at the discretion of State 

governments), it did recommend that 

LSVs be licensed only for use in 

environments with very limited traffic. 

Specifically, we stated: 

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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

55808 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

8 63 FR 33208. 

9 70 FR 48313, August 17, 2005. 

10 71 FR 20026, April 19, 2006. 

11The specific definitions are at Mont. Code Ann. 

61–1–101 and West’s RCWA 46.04.295. 

12Mont. Code Ann. 61–8–377. 

13Washington State Senate Bill Report, HB 1820, 

March 21, 2007. 

14 63 FR 33207. 

15 63 FR 33208. 

plan, and to adopt those features to the extent 

practicable.8

In later rulemakings, NHTSA made 

several adjustments to the definition of 

LSVs. First and foremost, the agency 

dropped its original restriction on 

‘‘truck-like’’ vehicles, and replaced it 

with a maximum gross vehicle weight 

rating for LSVs.9 This weight limit was 

originally 2,500 lbs., but was later 

increased to 3,000 lbs.10

IV. State Legislation on MSEVs and 

Relevant Federal Requirements 

In the past year, two States have 

enacted legislation that purports to 

allow medium speed electric vehicles 

(MSEVs) to operate on certain public 

roads. Montana was the first State to 

pass such a law, on April 23, 2007. This 

was followed shortly thereafter by 

Washington State, which passed on May 

15, 2007. These are the only two States 

that NHTSA is aware of that have 

passed any sort of MSV legislation. 

The Montana and Washington statutes 

define MSEVs as electric-powered 

vehicles with a maximum speed of 35 

mph that meet certain limited safety 

requirements similar to those 

established by NHTSA for LSVs.11 The 

Montana law permits MSEVs to travel 

on public roads with a posted speed of 

up to 45 mph,12 while the Washington 

law restricts them to roads with a posted 

speed of 35 mph or less. 

NHTSA has considered the legislative 

history and other information relating to 

the aforementioned State laws. Both 

States were interested in expanding the 

use of electric vehicles in order to 

reduce fuel consumption, and economic 

and environmental benefits associated 

with that end. Additionally, there was a 

stated belief that a speed of 35 mph is 

needed for safety, as they would be able 

to keep up with traffic better. The 

following excerpt from the Washington 

State Senate report illustrates the 

considerations at issue: 

Staff Summary of Public Testimony: PRO: 

These electric vehicles are environmentally 

friendly and provide significant energy 

savings. They are not golf carts; they are cars 

designed for running errands in town. The 

current speed of 25 mph is too slow and puts 

people at risk. Increasing the allowed speed 

to 35 mph will improve safety.13

Under Federal law, vehicles with a 

speed capability above 25 mph that 

would be considered MSEVs under 

these State laws are classified as 

passenger cars, multipurpose passenger 

vehicles, or trucks. These vehicles are 

subject to the full range of FMVSSs that 

apply to these vehicles. The 

responsibilities of manufacturers and 

dealers to comply with Federal law, 

including not manufacturing or selling 

vehicles unless they comply with all 

applicable FMVSSs, are not limited by 

State laws on MSEVs. 

V. Agency Response to Petitions 

After carefully considering the 

petitions from Environmental Motors, 

Proteon and Mirox, we are denying 

them. First and foremost among this 

agency’s considerations are safety 

concerns. The concept of establishing 

such a class of motor vehicles with 

limited safety features that would be 

likely to intermingle with larger, higherspeed vehicles in urban environments 

would result in significantly greater risk 

of deaths and serious injuries. The 

petitioners did not provide analysis 

demonstrating why any of the Federal 

motor vehicle safety standards are not 

needed for MSVs, given the traffic 

environment in which these vehicles 

would be likely to travel. 

A. The Rationale for Applying a Limited 

Set of Safety Standards to LSVs Is Not 

Relevant to MSVs 

As noted earlier, the petitioners 

appear to view MSVs as a variant of 

LSVs, i.e., a special class of small motor 

vehicles that would not be required to 

meet the full complement of the Federal 

motor vehicle safety standards. 

However, the rationale for applying a 

limited set of safety standards to LSVs 

is not relevant to MSVs. 

NHTSA issues different safety 

standards for different types of motor 

vehicles. The agency established the 

special category of motor vehicles called 

LSVs to accommodate the use of small 

golf cars and other vehicles primarily 

intended for use in controlled, lowspeed communities, such as retirement 

communities. In order to qualify as an 

LSV under the agency’s definition, a 

vehicle must, among other things, have 

a speed capability no higher than 25 

mph. LSVs are subject to a limited set 

of safety measures in FMVSS No. 500, 

including requirements related to the 

installation of lamps, mirrors, seat belts 

and a windshield. However, LSV’s are 

not subject to most of the standards to 

which other light vehicles such as 

passenger cars are required to comply, 

including the rigorous crashworthiness 

standards. 

One of the principal concerns raised 

by the petitioners is that the 25 mph 

speed limitation that applies to LSVs 

prevents these vehicles from keeping up 

with traffic in urban areas. They argued 

that because LSVs are not permitted to 

have a speed capability greater than 25 

mph, they cannot safely keep up with 

traffic in urban areas, and a need 

therefore exists for vehicles with a 

higher speed (35 mph) capability. 

However, the 25 mph limitation 

reflects the fact that NHTSA designed 

the set of safety standards that apply to 

LSVs for vehicles intended to be used in 

controlled, low speed environments. 

Vehicles with a speed capability above 

25 mph are more likely to be driven 

outside controlled, low speed 

environments, and the limited LSV 

safety requirements are not appropriate 

for such vehicles. 

When promulgating the original LSV 

rule, as stated above, at the time one of 

the most important factors was that 

LSVs were conceived as vehicles that 

would be used in controlled, low-speed 

environments, primary in retirement 

communities and those centered around 

golf courses. NHTSA surveyed the 

applicable State laws governing the onroad use of LSVs, and found that only 

one out of twelve States with LSV-use 

laws permitted them to travel on any 

public road with a speed limit of 35 

mph or less. The other remaining States 

limited their use to specially-designated 

roads.14 While NHTSA does not have 

the authority to prescribe the roads for 

which different types of vehicles are 

permitted, the agency suggested limiting 

LSVs to controlled environments. The 

following passage from the 1998 final 

rule properly summarizes NHTSA’s 

position on this point: 

Still another reason [for the significant 

disparity in the number of deaths involving 

NEVs] 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 on-road 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 

on-road 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.15

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Proposed Rules 55809 

16Using the methodology of ‘‘Lives Saved by the 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Other 

Vehicle Technologies, 1960–2002’’ DOT HS 809– 

833. 

17TRANS/WP.29/78/Rev.1/Amend. 4, 26 April 

2005. 

We recognize that since that time 

many States have passed laws 

permitting LSVs on a much wider 

variety of roads than originally 

contemplated. Today, many States 

permit LSVs on all public roads with 

posted speed limits of 35 mph or less. 

Some States even permit them on roads 

with speed limits of 45 mph. 

As we have noted before, however, we 

continue to believe that LSV use on 

roads outside confined, controlled areas 

will be limited by the fact that 

occupants will not want to travel at less 

than 25 mph in mixed-vehicle traffic for 

other than very short trips, regardless of 

how States may or may not restrict their 

use. See 68 FR 68319, December 3, 

2003. 

We agree with the petitioners that the 

increased speed capability and other 

features in the requested MSV category 

would facilitate and encourage drivers 

to use MSVs in general driving 

environments. This, however, means 

that the rationale for applying a limited 

set of safety standards to LSVs is not 

relevant to MSVs. Instead, and as 

discussed further below, this is an 

argument for why these vehicles should 

be required to comply with the same 

safety standards as other light vehicles 

used in general driving environments, 

such as passenger cars. 

B. The Traffic Environment in Which 

MSVs Would Likely Travel Is an 

Environment for Which the Full Set of 

the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards Is Needed To Prevent 

Fatalities and Serious Injuries 

The petitioners appear to assume that 

the full set of safety standards 

applicable to other light vehicles such 

as passenger cars would not be 

appropriate for MSVs, i.e., small 

vehicles with a speed capability of 35 

mph. However, the traffic environment 

in which these vehicles would likely 

travel, including, e.g., urban roads with 

speed limits of 35 mph or 45 mph, is an 

environment for which the full set of the 

Federal motor vehicle safety standards 

is needed to prevent fatalities and 

serious injuries. We note that the energy 

involved in vehicle-to-vehicle collisions 

increases proportional to the square of 

the velocity of travel, and the result of 

a vehicle collision at 35 mph is twice as 

severe as the same collision at 25 mph. 

MSVs would be traveling in mixed 

traffic at speeds in which crashes posed 

a risk of serious injury or fatality and in 

which safety features such as frontal 

and side air bags significantly reduced 

that risk. Also, a number of the crash 

test requirements included in our safety 

standards simulate crashes in this 

higher speed environment. We note that 

the petitioners did not provide analysis 

demonstrating why any of the Federal 

motor vehicle safety standards are not 

needed for MSVs. 

As part of considering this issue, we 

have looked at crash information on 

public roads with speed limits of 35 to 

45 mph. For this traffic environment, 

the need for the safety features required 

in FMVSS No. 208, air bags, are far more 

important than for lower speed crashes, 

as frontal crashes become a more 

prominent part of the overall crash 

picture. 

The total number of occupants killed 

annually in crashes is 37,314 (2002– 

2006 average, Fatality Analysis 

Reporting System). Of these occupant 

fatalities, 6,319 were killed on roads 

with posted speed limits of 35 mph or 

less, and 13,493 are killed in crashes on 

roads with posted speed limits of 45 

mph or less. The total number of 

occupants suffering incapacitating 

injury annually is 13,492. Of these, 

1,798 were injured in crashes on roads 

with posted speed limits of 35 mph or 

less, and 4,261 occupants were injured 

in crashes on roads with posted speed 

limits of 45 mph or less. It is important 

to note that those numbers reflect 

vehicles that were certified to comply 

with the Federal motor vehicle safety 

standards. 

We estimate that in 2005, on roads 

posted at 35 mph or lower, 1,921 crash 

victims lived because the vehicles were 

compliant with all FMVSSs, including 

278 saved by air bags. In crashes on 

roads posted at 45 mph or lower, 3,163 

lives were saved because the vehicles 

involved were compliant with all 

FMVSSs. Of those, 414 were saved by 

air bags.16

Given these statistics, we believe the 

full set of Federal motor vehicle safety 

standards is needed for vehicles 

traveling in the traffic environment in 

which MSVs would likely travel, 

including, e.g., urban roads with speed 

limits of 35 mph or 45 mph. 

Finally, as noted above, a number of 

the crash test requirements included in 

our safety standards simulate crashes in 

this environment. For example, our 

highest speed crash test in FMVSS No. 

208 (vehicle compliance is currently 

phasing in) simulates a 35 mph frontal 

crash between the tested vehicle and a 

vehicle like itself. Our crash test in 

FMVSS No. 214 that helps ensure 

thoracic protection simulates a crash in 

which the tested vehicle traveling at 15 

mph is struck in the side by a light 

vehicle traveling at 30 mph. 

C. It Is Neither Necessary nor 

Appropriate To Significantly Increase 

the Risk of Deaths and Serious Injuries 

To Save Fuel 

The petitioners and the supporters 

which wrote in favor of the 

Environmental Motors petition 

emphasized the potential to conserve 

fuel, thereby saving money at a time of 

high fuel prices as well as reducing 

emissions that can harm the 

environment. In the two States that 

passed MSEV statutes, the legislative 

history also shows that this legislation 

was conceived due to concerns about 

saving fuel. 

NHTSA also considers fuel 

conservation an important goal. 

However, we believe that it is neither 

necessary nor appropriate to 

significantly increase the risk of deaths 

and serious injuries to save fuel. 

Fuel conservation can be 

accomplished by means that are not 

inconsistent with the need for safety. 

Significant innovation is currently 

underway in fuel economy, gas-electric 

hybrid engine technology, and 

continued development of fully electric 

vehicles, such as the Chevrolet Volt, 

noted in the Mirox petition. NHTSA 

recently published a proposal to 

substantially increase fuel economy 

(CAFE) standards for passenger cars and 

light trucks. These standards affect 

nearly all light vehicles, and will have 

a tremendous impact on fuel savings. 

Furthermore, these vehicles are being 

designed to meet the full FMVSS 

requirements for passenger cars or other 

applicable vehicle class. 

D. Other Issues 

The petitioners raised a number of 

additional issues, which we discuss in 

this section. 

Quadricycles 

The Mirox petition compared the 

requested MSV classification to a type 

of vehicle used in Europe known as a 

‘‘quadricycle.’’ The Economic 

Commission for Europe (ECE) defines a 

quadricycle in two vehicle categories, L6

‘‘light quadricycle’’ and L7

‘‘quadricycle’’: 17

Category L6: A vehicle with four wheels 

whose unladen mass in not more than 350 

kg, not including the mass of the batteries in 

the case of electric vehicles, whose maximum 

design speed is not more than 45 km/h, and 

whose engine cylinder capacity does not 

exceed 50 cm3 for spark (positive) ignition 

engines, or whose maximum net power 

output does not exceed 4 kW in the case of 

other internal combustion engines, or whose 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

55810 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

maximum continuous rated power does not 

exceed 4 kW in the case of electric engines. 

Category L7: A vehicle with four wheels, 

other than that classified for the category L6, 

whose unladen mass is not more than 400 kg 

(550 kg for vehicles intended for carrying 

goods), not including the mass of batteries in 

the case of electric vehicles and whose 

maximum continuous rated power does not 

exceed 15 kW. 

Mirox claimed that quadricycles are 

an extremely safe method of 

transportation that is used extensively 

in Europe. The chief benefits of 

quadricycles is that they are easy to use 

(unlike motorcycles), easy to park, and 

consume far less fuel than even the 

smallest European passenger cars. Mirox 

requested that MSVs be defined in such 

a way that at least some European 

quadricycles can be legally imported as 

MSVs. 

While the petitioner claimed that 

quadricycles are extremely safe, Mirox 

did not provide any data to support this 

claim or to show that introduction of 

these vehicles into the U.S. would be 

consistent with the need for safety. We 

note that we have earlier denied the 

petition of GG Quad North American to 

change the definition of ‘‘motorcycle’’ to 

allow quadricycles to be sold in the U.S. 

as motorcycles (71 FR 67843, November 

24, 2006). 

Aftermarket Speed Modifications of 

LSVs 

A letter written in support of the 

Environmental Motors petition by 

Electrovaya suggested that ‘‘The new 

[MSV] regulations would give people a 

better option than illegally changing an 

LSV to go faster.’’ We agree with 

Electrovaya that modifying an LSV to 

increase the speed is highly undesirable. 

However, we do not believe that 

adopting a regulation to accommodate 

this practice is a prudent response to the 

issue. Furthermore, we would point out 

that manufacturers, dealers, sellers, and 

motor vehicle repair businesses that 

modify the speed of an LSV are in 

violation of the ‘‘make inoperative’’ 

provision. 

This statutory provision, 49 U.S.C. 

30122, Making safety devices and 

elements inoperative, reads in part: 

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or 

motor vehicle repair business may not 

knowingly make inoperative any part of a 

device or element of design installed on or 

in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle 

equipment in compliance with an applicable 

motor vehicle safety standard prescribed 

under this chapter unless the manufacturer, 

distributor, dealer, or repair business 

reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment 

will not be used (except for testing or a 

similar purpose during maintenance or 

repair) when the device or element is 

inoperative. 

If one of the above-mentioned entities 

increased the speed of an LSV to 25 

mph or greater, that LSV would no 

longer comply with paragraph S5.3 of 

FMVSS No. 500, which specifies that 

the vehicle’s top speed must be less 

than 25 mph. Therefore, the modifying 

entity would be subject to civil penalties 

as specified in 49 U.S.C. 30165. 

Burgeoning Electric Vehicle Market 

Porteon states in its petition, 

‘‘Regardless of our [the electric cars’ 

industry] success or failure, the U.S. 

will soon see an influx in electric 

vehicles as fuel prices, urbanization, 

and climate change effect [sic] 

transportation and state regulation. It is 

estimated that over 20 manufacturers 

are in operation or commencing 

production along with a new influx of 

imports anticipated from China and 

Malaysia. Our concern is that 

unregulated growth could create safety 

issues and concerns that negatively 

impact and cause severe damage to a 

new growth industry that provides real 

and significant solution to our country 

and our planet’s key issues.’’ NHTSA 

would like to point out that the electric 

vehicle market is not unregulated. Any 

vehicle not certified as an LSV, or that 

travels at speeds greater than 25 miles 

per hour, must meet all the FMVSSs in 

place for the appropriate vehicle type 

(passenger car, truck, bus, or MPV). The 

petitioner can rest assured that growth 

of the electric vehicle market will not 

occur without the vehicles meeting the 

existing regulatory safety requirements 

enforced by NHTSA. The only 

difference between electric vehicles and 

those predominately in use today is 

their propulsion system. An electric 

propulsion system will not exempt 

these vehicles from the requirement to 

meet all the Federal standards for motor 

vehicles. 

VI. Conclusion 

For the reasons discussed above, 

NHTSA denies the petitions for 

rulemaking submitted by Environmental 

Motors, Proteon Electric Vehicles and 

Mirox Corporation. 

Issued on: September 19, 2008. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. E8–22737 Filed 9–25–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS