Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

SUMMARY: This final rule responds to a growing public interest in using

golf cars 1 and other similar-sized, 4-wheeled vehicles to

make short trips for shopping, social and recreational purposes

primarily within retirement or other planned communities with golf

courses. These passenger-carrying vehicles, although low-speed, offer a

variety of advantages, including comparatively low-cost and energy-

efficient mobility. Further, many of these vehicles are electric-

powered. The use of these vehicles, instead of larger, gasoline-powered

vehicles like passenger cars, provides quieter transportation that does

not pollute the air of the communities in which they are operated.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ While many members of the general public use the term ``golf

cart,'' the manufacturers of those vehicles use the term ``golf

car.'' This final rule uses ``golf car,'' except in those instances

in which the other term is used in a quotation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currently, there is a growing conflict between state and local

laws, on the one hand, and Federal law, on the other, in the treatment

of these small vehicles. That conflict unnecessarily restricts the

ability of vehicle manufacturers to produce and sell, and the ability

of consumers to purchase, these vehicles. In recent years, a growing

number of states from California to Florida have passed legislation

authorizing their local jurisdictions to permit general on-road use of

``golf carts,'' subject to speed and/or operational limitations. A

majority of those states condition such broad use upon the vehicles'

having specified safety equipment. Further, some of these states have

opened the way for the use of vehicles that are faster than almost all

golf cars. Most conventional golf cars, as originally manufactured,

have a top speed of less than 15 miles per hour. These states have

either redefined ``golf carts'' to include vehicles designed to achieve

up to 25 miles per hour or have established a new class of vehicles,

``neighborhood electric vehicles,'' also defined as capable of

achieving 25 miles per hour.

Under current NHTSA interpretations and regulations, so long as

golf cars and other similar vehicles are incapable of exceeding 20

miles per hour, they are subject to only state and local requirements

regarding safety equipment. However, if these vehicles are originally

manufactured so that they can go faster than 20 miles per hour, they

are treated as motor vehicles under Federal law. Similarly, if golf

cars are modified after original manufacture so that they can achieve

20 or more miles per hour, they too are treated as motor vehicles.

Further, as motor vehicles, they are currently classified as passenger

cars and must comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards

for that vehicle type. This creates a conflict with the state and local

laws because compliance with the full range of those standards is not

feasible for these small vehicles.

To resolve this conflict, and to permit the manufacture and sale of

small, 4-wheeled motor vehicles with top speeds of 20 to 25 miles per

hour, this final rule reclassifies these small passenger-carrying

vehicles. Instead of being classified as passenger cars, they are now

being classified as ``low-speed vehicles.'' Since conventional golf

cars, as presently manufactured, have a top speed of less than 20 miles

per hour, they are not included in that classification.

As low-speed vehicles, these 20 to 25 mile-per-hour vehicles are

subject to a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 500 (49 CFR

571.500) established by this final rule. The agency notes that the

growing on-road use of golf cars has already resulted in some deaths

and serious injuries, and believes that the new standard is needed to

address the effects in crashes of the higher speed of low-speed

vehicles. The standard requires low-speed vehicles to be equipped with

headlamps, stop lamps, turn signal lamps, taillamps, reflex reflectors,

parking brakes, rearview mirrors, windshields, seat belts, and vehicle

identification numbers. The agency believes that these requirements

appropriately address the safety of low-speed vehicle occupants and

other roadway users, given the sub-25 mph speed capability of these

vehicles and the controlled environments in which they operate.

This rulemaking proceeding was initiated in response to a request

by Bombardier, Inc., that the agency make regulatory changes to permit

the introduction of a new class of 4-wheeled, passenger-carrying

vehicle that is small, relatively slow-moving, and low-cost.

DATES: The final rule is effective June 17, 1998. Petitions for

reconsideration must be filed not later than August 3, 1998.

Incorporation by reference of the materials listed in this document

is approved by the Director of the Federal Register and is effective

upon publication in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the Docket

number and be submitted to Docket Management, PL-401, 400 7th Street,

SW, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For technical issues: Stephen R. Kratzke, Office of Crash Avoidance

Standards, NHTSA, Room 5307, 400 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590

(telephone 202-366-4931; fax 202-366-4329).

For legal issues: Taylor Vinson, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA,

Room 5219, 400 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-366-

5263; fax 202-366-3820).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Glossary

II. Executive Summary

A. The Final Rule

B. Comparison of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Final Rule

III. Background

A. Introduction; Sub-25 MPH Vehicles and the Traditional

Interpretation of ``Motor Vehicles''

B. 1996 Request for Regulatory Relief

C. Pre-Rulemaking Study and 1996 Public Meetings

D. Regulatory Options Considered

E. 1997 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

F. Summary of Comments on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

1. State and Local Officials; Utilities

2. Manufacturers and Dealers of Golf Cars and Neighborhood

Electric Vehicles

3. Advocacy Organizations

4. Other Commenters

G. Post-Comment Period Comments and Information

1. Manufacturers and Dealers of Golf Cars; Members of Congress

2. Other Sources

IV. Final Rule and Resolution of Key Issues

A. Summary

B. Authority and Safety Need for this Final Rule

1. Low-Speed Vehicles are Motor Vehicles

a. Speed-modified Golf Cars Are Motor Vehicles

b. Neighborhood Electric Vehicles Are Motor Vehicles

2. The Agency Has Authority to Regulate Anticipated as well as

Current Safety Problems

3. Issuance of this Rule Appropriately Addresses an Anticipated

Safety Problem

a. Crash Data Show a Limited Safety Problem Involving the On-

road Use of Fleet and Personal Golf Cars

[[Page 33195]]

b. The States Have Adopted Laws Requiring Safety Equipment on

Fleet and Personal Golf Cars Used on Public Roads

c. There is a Similar, But Greater Anticipated Safety Problem

Involving Low-Speed Vehicles

d. This Rule Requires Safety Equipment on Low Speed Vehicles

Consistent with Their Characteristics and Operating Environment

4. The Agency Has Appropriately Considered the Experience of

Foreign Small Vehicles

C. Safety Engineering Issues

1. Speed Range of Motor Vehicles Subject to this Standard

a. Minimum Threshold of 20 Miles per Hour

b. Upper Limit of 25 Miles per Hour

2. Seat Belts

3. Windshields

4. VINs, Horn, and Warning Label

5. Other Areas of Safety Performance; Future Considerations

D. Compliance with Other Statutory Requirements Relating to

Safety and With Federal Statutes Regulating Non-Safety Aspects of

Motor Vehicles

1. Other Statutory Requirements Relating to Safety

2. Federal Statutes Regulating Non-Safety Aspects of Motor

Vehicles

a. Theft

b. Content Labeling

c. Corporate Average Fuel Economy

d. Bumper Standards

V. Effective Date

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Regulatory Text

I. Glossary

Since some of the groups of vehicles discussed in this final rule

may be unfamiliar to many readers, the agency has listed and defined

them below. In addition, it has shown their relationship to each other

in the graph following the list.

``Sub-25 mph vehicle'' means any 4-wheeled vehicle whose top speed

is not greater than 25 miles per hour. This group includes all of the

vehicles in the other groups below, except those speed-modified golf

cars whose top speed is greater than 25 miles per hour.

``Conventional golf car'' means either a fleet golf car or a

personal golf car.

(A) ``Fleet golf car'' means a golf car used solely to carry one or

more people and golf equipment to play golf. These are sold to golf

courses.

(B) ``Personal golf car'' means a golf car used to carry one or

more people and may carry golf equipment to play golf. These are sold

to individual people who may use them to travel on public roads to and

from golf courses and to play golf, to travel on public roads on

purposes unrelated to golf, or for all of these purposes.

``Speed-modified golf car'' means a conventional golf car that was

modified, after its original manufacture, so as to increase its speed.

While some speed-modified golf cars have a top speed of 20 to 25 miles

per hour, others have a higher top speed. That modification may

currently be accompanied by the addition of safety equipment required

for the on-road use of the golf car.

``Neighborhood electric vehicle'' means any 4-wheeled electric

vehicle whose top speed is not greater than 25 miles per hour. Some of

these vehicles look more like a passenger car than a conventional golf

car.

``Low-speed vehicle'' means any 4-wheeled motor vehicle whose top

speed is greater than 20 miles per hour, but not greater than 25 miles

per hour. This group includes neighborhood electric vehicles, and

speed-modified golf cars, whose top speed is greater than 20 miles per

hour, but not greater than 25 miles per hour.

II. Executive Summary

A. The Final Rule

Since 1966, NHTSA has been directed by the National Traffic and

Motor Vehicle Safety Act (``Vehicle Safety Act'') (now codified as 49

U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards

(FMVSSs) for motor vehicles and to ensure that those standards are

appropriate for each class of motor vehicle to which they apply. 49

U.S.C. 30111(a) and (b)(3). As the vehicles within a class evolve in

design or use or as the size of a class changes substantially relative

to the sizes of other classes, the standards applicable to that class

typically must evolve to keep pace with changing safety needs and

priorities. For example, the substantial increase in the number of

passenger vans and other types of light trucks and multipurpose

passenger vehicles (and the increase in the personal use of these

vehicles) in the 1980's led the agency to extend the requirements for

passenger cars to those classes of vehicles. More recently, the

increasing size and prevalence of sport utility vehicles has led the

agency to examine the compatibility of those vehicles and smaller

vehicles and review the standards applicable to those vehicles.

Similarly, the appearance of new vehicles, such as electric vehicles

and compressed natural gas vehicles, has made it necessary for the

agency to issue new requirements tailored to the particular anticipated

safety issues associated with those vehicles.

This rulemaking involves another instance in which the agency is

called upon to adjust its standards to reflect changes in the vehicle

population. Transportation needs are changing as the number of

retirement and other planned communities grow. These communities are

particularly numerous in the southern tier or Sunbelt states such as

California, Arizona, and Florida. 2 Many residents within

these communities do not need or want a conventional motor vehicle like

a passenger car to make short trips to visit friends, to run errands,

or, if they are golfers, to go to the golf course. They prefer to use a

smaller, 4-wheeled vehicle with limited-speed capability, such as a

golf car, that is less costly and, if electric, emission free.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Some of the better known and most frequently-reported on

examples of golf car communities are the City of Palm Desert,

California, Sun City and Sun City West, Arizona, Peachtree City,

Georgia (golf car operation there is restricted to dedicated paths),

and Sun City Center and The Villages of Lady Lake, Florida.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For years, a common practice among those relatively few states then

permitting on-road use of golf cars was to allow such use only within a

specified distance (generally ranging from \1/2\ mile to 2 miles) from

a golf course. ``Golf carts'' were defined by several of the states as

having a top speed of 15 miles per hour or less.

In recent years, however, a growing number of states from

California to Florida have passed legislation eliminating or

establishing exceptions to the requirement that the on-road use of golf

cars be in the vicinity of a golf course and authorizing their local

jurisdictions to permit general on-road use of ``golf carts,'' subject

to speed and/or operational limitations.3 Nine of the 12

states now authorizing general on-road use condition such broader use

upon the golf cars' meeting requirements for safety equipment. In all,

16 states 4 now have laws authorizing their local

governments to

[[Page 33196]]

permit golf cars either to be used generally on public streets

designated by local governments (12 states) or within the vicinity of

golf courses or a person's residence (4 states).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

have gradually evolved in the last 15-20 years, particularly in the

last 5 years, so as to expand the extent to which golf cars can be

used on public roads. Several distinct stages of evolution are

discernible:

permitting golf car operators to cross public roads

cutting through golf course;

permitting golf cars to be used on roads in vicinity of

golf course to make trips to and from golf course within golf

community;

permitting golf car use on roads designated by local

governments; and

permitting use of NEVs and golf cars with top speed of

up to 25 miles per hour.

Some states have progressed through several stages in sequence,

while others have apparently skipped the first several stages and

begun with one of the latter stages.

\4\ Twelve states have a law permitting all-purpose trips with

potentially broad areas: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida,

Georgia, Illinois (awaiting governor's signature), Iowa, Minnesota,

Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and Wyoming. One state has a law

permitting all-purpose trips within vicinity of a person's

residence: South Carolina. Three states have a law permitting trips

to and from golf course: Arkansas, Oregon and Wisconsin.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further, three states have changed their laws to reflect the

existence of sub-25 mph vehicles that are faster than almost all golf

cars. They have either replaced an old statutory provision defining

``golf carts'' as having a top speed up to 15 miles per hour with a new

one defining them as having a top speed up to 25 miles per hour

5 or have added a new class of vehicles, ``neighborhood

electric vehicles,'' also capable of achieving 25 miles per

hour.6

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ For the purpose of statutory provisions relating to golf car

transportation plans, California defines a ``golf cart'' as ``a

motor vehicle having not less than three wheels in contact with the

ground, having an unladen weight less than 1,300 pounds, which is

designed to be and is operated at not more than 25 miles per hour

and designed to carry golf equipment and not more than two persons,

including the driver.'' California Streets & Highways Code

Sec. 1951. (For all other purposes, California Vehicle Code Sec. 345

continues to define ``golf carts'' as ``a motor vehicle . . . .

which is designed to be and is operated at not more than 15 miles

per hour . . .'') Arizona has a definition similar to Sec. 1951,

except that it specifies an unladen weight of less than 1,800 pounds

and a capability of carrying not more than four persons, including

the driver. A.R.S. Sec. 28-101(22).

\6\ Arizona defines a ``neighborhood electric vehicle'' as an

emission free motor vehicle with at least 4 wheels in contact with

the ground and an unladen vehicle weight of less than 1,800 pounds

that is designed to be and is operated at no more than 25 mph and is

designed to carry no more than four persons. A.R.S. Sec. 28-101(32).

Colorado has a similar term and definition. C.R.S 42-1-102 (60.5).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to meeting a transportation need of these communities,

sub-25 mph vehicles also help them meet some of their environmental

goals. These vehicles are energy-efficient. Further, many of them are

battery-powered, and thus emission free and quiet. To the extent that

emission-free vehicles replace conventional vehicles powered by

internal combustion engines, they help state and local officials in

meeting ambient air quality standards under the Clean Air Act. For

example, the City of Palm Desert, California, estimates that it has

achieved an emissions reduction of 16 tons of carbon monoxide annually

since implementing its program allowing golf cars to use the public

streets. Further, as noted by the Economic Development Department of

Arizona Public Service, the state's largest utility company, the use of

electric vehicles also produces reductions in emissions of

hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxide, and carbon dioxide.

There is currently a Federal regulatory barrier to the manufacture

and sale of a segment of the sub-25 mph vehicle group. Under

longstanding agency interpretations, vehicles used on public roads are

regarded by this agency as ``motor vehicles'' within the meaning of the

Vehicle Safety Act if they have a top speed greater than 20 miles per

hour. If sub-25 mph passenger-carrying vehicles have a top speed

exceeding 20 miles per hour, they are classified in the same manner as

much faster and larger motor vehicles (i.e., as passenger cars).

Further, they are subject to the same FMVSSs developed to meet the

particular safety needs of passenger cars. Since the application of

these FMVSSs to these sub-25 mph passenger-carrying vehicles would

necessitate the addition of a considerable amount of structure, weight

and cost, such application appears to preclude their production and

sale. In addition, given the limited-speed capability and relatively

controlled operating environments of these vehicles, it does not

currently appear necessary from a safety standpoint to design them to

meet the full range of passenger car FMVSSs, especially those

incorporating dynamic crash requirements.

This rulemaking eliminates the conflict between the state and local

laws, on the one hand, and the Federal requirements, on the other, by

removing these sub-25 mph vehicles with a top speed range of 20 to 25

miles per hour from the passenger car class of motor vehicles and

placing them in a new class subject to its own set of safety

requirements.7 As noted above in the summary section, the

new class is called low-speed vehicles (LSV). LSVs include any 4-

wheeled vehicle, other than a truck, with a maximum speed greater than

20 miles per hour, but not greater than 25 miles per hour.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ This action is analogous to the agency's decision in 1968 to

regulate small, low-powered motorcycles differently than larger,

higher-powered motorcycles. To implement this decision, the agency

established a subclass of motorcycles called ``motor-driven

cycles.'' NHTSA then determined which of the requirements in the

safety standards for the larger, higher-powered motorcycles would be

appropriate for application to motor-driven cycles. The agency

excluded motor-driven cycles from some requirements, while making

them subject to other requirements. By means of this tailoring, the

agency effectively balanced its responsibilities to assure that its

standards:

protect the public from unreasonable risk, and

are practicable and appropriate for the particular

vehicle type.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are currently two types of vehicles that will qualify as

LSVs. One type is the golf car. All conventional golf cars, as now

originally manufactured, have a top speed of less than 20 miles per

hour, and thus, do not meet the speed capability threshold for LSVs.

However, some conventional golf cars are modified so as to go more than

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

between 20 and 25 miles per hour qualify as LSVs. Similarly, there is a

very small number of originally manufactured custom golf cars that are

not modified conventional golf cars and that have a top speed above 20

miles per hour. Some of them look very much like passenger cars. Those

custom golf cars with a top speed between 20 and 25 miles per hour

qualify as LSVs.

The other vehicles that will qualify as an LSV are so-called

``Neighborhood Electric Vehicles'' or ``NEVs.'' Current NEVs are bigger

and heavier, and have more superstructure than golf cars. Further, as

originally manufactured, current NEVs have top speeds of 25 miles per

hour. However, like golf cars, they do not have doors, and thus have

neither heating systems nor air conditioners.

LSVs will be subject to a new FMVSS, Standard No. 500, Low-Speed

Vehicles, established by this final rule. This standard is being issued

in recognition of the fact that the growing on-road use of golf cars

has already resulted in some deaths and serious injuries. The agency

has information indicating that there were 16 deaths of golf car

occupants on the public roads from 1993 to 1997. The standard's

requirements are based primarily upon a regulation that the City of

Palm Desert, California, established in 1993 for golf car owners

seeking to register their golf cars for use on the city's streets. The

new FMVSS requires LSVs to be equipped with basic items of safety

equipment: headlamps, stop lamps, turn signal lamps, taillamps, reflex

reflectors, parking brake, windshields of either type AS-1 or type AS-5

glazing, rearview mirrors, seat belts and vehicle identification

numbers (VINs).

In view of the uncertainty among commenters about compliance

responsibilities under Standard No. 500, the agency wants to clarify

the responsibilities of each group of interested parties.8

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ Manufacturers of custom golf cars, dealers and other

commercial entities that modify golf cars, and manufacturers of NEVs

may wish to obtain a copy of NHTSA regulations (in Title 49 Code of

Federal Regulations Parts 400-999 revised as of October 1, 1997,

available from a U.S. Government Bookstore). Among other things,

these parties will need to obtain a VIN identifier from the Society

of Automotive Engineers, as specified in Part 565. They will also

have to prepare and affix certification labels in accordance with

Part 567 when their low-speed vehicles have been conformed and are

ready for sale. Finally, they must file an identification statement

that meets the requirements of Part 566 not later than 30 days after

beginning manufacture of a low-speed vehicle.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Manufacturers of conventional golf cars. Golf car

manufacturers have no

[[Page 33197]]

compliance responsibilities so long as they continue their current

practice of limiting the top speed of their golf cars, as originally

manufactured, to less than 20 miles per hour.

Manufacturers of custom golf cars. Manufacturers of custom

golf cars are subject to Standard No. 500 if the top speed of their

vehicles is between 20 and 25 miles per hour and to the FMVSSs for

passenger cars if their top speed is above 25 miles per hour.

Dealers and other commercial entities that modify golf

cars. If dealers and other commercial entities modify conventional golf

cars so that their top speed is increased to between 20 and 25 miles

per hour, those dealers and entities must conform the modified golf

cars to Standard No. 500 and certify their compliance with that

standard. This requirement covers all golf cars modified on or after

the effective date of Standard No. 500, regardless of when the golf car

was originally manufactured.

Manufacturers of NEVs. Any manufacturer of a NEV whose top

speed is between 20 and 25 miles per hour must ensure that the vehicle

complies with Standard No. 500 and certify its compliance with that

standard. This requirement covers all new NEVs manufactured on or after

the effective date of Standard No. 500.

In response to concerns expressed by several commenters, NHTSA

wishes to address several matters concerning the effect that issuing

Standard No. 500 has on state and local laws. First, as noted in the

NPRM, this final rule does not alter the ability of states and local

governments to decide for themselves whether to permit on-road use of

golf cars and LSVs.

Second, state and local governments may supplement Standard No. 500

in some respects. They may do so by requiring the installation of and

regulate the performance of safety equipment not required by the

standard. However, the states and local governments may not specify

performance requirements for the safety equipment that is required by

the standard. The agency tentatively decided in the NPRM that LSV

manufacturers need not comply with requirements regulating the

performance of any items of equipment (except seat belts) required by

the standard. Seat belts are required to meet Standard No. 209, Seat

belt assemblies. The agency is making that decision final in this rule.

Third, the agency notes that the issuance of Standard No. 500 does

not require current owners of speed-modified golf cars having a top

speed between 20 to 25 miles per hour to retrofit them with the

equipment specified in the standard. The decision whether to require

retrofitting of golf cars that are already on the road remains in the

domain of state and local law.

B. Comparison of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Final Rule

NHTSA proposed that the low-speed vehicle standard be designated

Standard No. 100. However, since the standard contains both crash

avoidance and crashworthiness requirements, NHTSA has decided to adopt

a number for the new standard that is outside both the 100 series of

standards and the 200 series of standards. The new standard will be

known as Standard No. 500, Low-speed vehicles, 49 CFR 571.500.

This final rule adopts, in most other respects, the standard as it

appeared in the agency's January 8, 1997 notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM) (62 FR 1077). It requires all the proposed safety equipment,

except the warning label, and, as requested by some commenters, adds a

requirement for a VIN. In response to comments regarding the need for

requiring means of enhancing rear conspicuity beyond that provided by

the proposed taillamps and stop lamps, the agency has added a

requirement for a rear reflex reflector to help following drivers

detect the presence of a parked or stopped LSV at night. In response to

a request of the National Golf Car Manufacturers Association (NGCMA)

that manufacturers be allowed to install polycarbonate windshields, the

final rule permits a choice between either AS-5 polycarbonate glazing

or AS-1 safety glass for LSV windshields.9 In addition, to

provide a means for determining whether a vehicle's speed qualifies it

as a LSV, the agency has added a test procedure for determining maximum

vehicle speed. The procedure is based largely on the maximum speed test

procedure in the industry standard for golf cars, 10 and on

provisions in American Society for Testing and Materials standards

regarding determination of pavement friction.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ Those types of glazing are defined in the American National

Standard Institute's ``Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for

Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways'' Z26.1-1977,

January 26, 1977, as ssupplemented by Z26.1a, July 3, 1980.

\10\ ANSI/NGCMA Z130.1-1993, ``American National Standard for

Golf Cars--Safety and Performance Requirements.''

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The final rule differs from the proposal in one other important

respect. The standard has been amended so that it applies to a narrower

population of vehicles. Before the issuance of the proposal, NGCMA

represented that: (1) Its members 11 do not manufacture any

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

all golf cars used exclusively on golf courses specifies a maximum

speed of 15 miles per hour; and (3) its members fully meet the industry

standard.12 Also, at a public meeting held by the agency on

July 25, 1996, NGCMA asked the agency to mandate speed limits not to

exceed 15 miles per hour for golf cars on public roads.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ NGCMA represents the original equipment manufacturers of 95

percent of all golf cars manufactured and distributed in the United

States. Its four largest members, in terms of golf car production,

are E-Z-GO, Club Car, Yamaha, and Melex.

\12\ The golf car industry indicated at NHTSA's July 25, 1996

public meeting that its members adhere to the standard ``100

percent.''

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on this information and request from NGCMA, it appeared to

NHTSA that 15 miles per hour was the appropriate dividing line not only

between golf cars manufactured for golf course use and those

manufactured for both on-road use and golf course use, but also between

conventional golf cars and speed-modified golf cars.13 The

agency tentatively concluded that if a golf car manufacturer produced

golf cars with a top speed capability above the industry standard,

i.e., above 15 miles per hour, that the ``manufacturer must intend its

vehicles to be used on public roads as well as one golf courses.'' (62

FR 1082) Accordingly, the agency drafted the proposal to cover vehicles

with a maximum speed capability greater than 15 miles per hour, but not

greater than 25 miles per hour. Based on what it had been told by

NGCMA, the agency believed that its proposal would affect virtually no

conventional golf cars, as originally manufactured.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ The agency noted that there was one model of golf car whose

top speed, as originally manufactured, reportedly exceeded 15 miles

per hour. No information relating to the production volume of that

model was available at that time.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since the NPRM, NHTSA has obtained new information from NGCMA. In

response to a May 1998 inquiry by the agency, NGCMA said that 1 percent

of Club Car's fleet golf cars, and 75 percent of its personal golf

cars, have a top speed between 15 and 20 miles per hour.14

Thus, contrary to the agency's expectation, the proposal would have

applied to a significant minority of Club Car's golf cars.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ NGCMA confirmed that E-Z-GO, Yamaha, and Melex do not

produce any golf cars whose top speed exceeds 15 miles per hour.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on this new information, the agency has decided to limit the

application of Standard No. 500 to vehicles whose top speed is between

20 and 25 miles per hour. This decision

[[Page 33198]]

carries out the agency's original intention of excluding virtually all

conventional golf cars, as originally manufactured, from the standard.

The agency also believes that 20 miles per hour is a better

dividing line between vehicles designed for use on the golf course and

vehicles designed for on-road use. The conventional golf cars with a

top speed between 15 and 20 miles per hour have a body and

understructure very similar to that of conventional golf cars with a

top speed less than 15 miles per hour. Further, while the speed

differential between those two groups of golf cars creates a

significant difference in their potential crash energy, the energy in

the 15 to 20 mile-per-hour range is still modest compared to that of

LSVs.15 According to NGCMA, golf cars with a top speed of

less than 15 miles per hour typically have a top speed of about 12

miles per hour. Those with a top speed between 15 and 20 miles per hour

are believed by the agency to have a top speed of approximately 17 to

18 miles per hour.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ The potential crash energy of a vehicle increases at a

greater rate than increases in the vehicle's speed. This is because

an object's acceleration (or deceleration) equals the mass of the

object times the velocity squared.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The practical safety effects of raising the speed threshold do not

appear to be extensive. Data obtained since the NPRM regarding the

limited number of fatalities associated with on-road use of

conventional golf cars indicate that the state and local governments

are adequately providing for the safety of on-road users of those golf

cars.

However, NHTSA concludes that Federal action is needed to address

the safety problems that the agency anticipates will be associated with

vehicles whose top speed is between 20 and 25 miles per hour. The speed

differential between those vehicles and the great bulk of golf cars

whose top speed is less than 15 miles per hour is as much as 12 miles

per hour, while the speed differential between golf cars whose top

speed is between 15 and 20 miles per hour and slower golf cars is about

half that, i.e., 5-6 miles per hour. The crash forces that 20 to 25

mile-per-hour vehicles will experience are significantly greater than

those for 15 to 20 mile-per-hour golf cars and much greater than those

for sub-15 mile-per-hour golf cars. Those greater forces make it

necessary to require that LSVs be equipped with more safety features

than the states and their local jurisdictions currently require for

conventional golf cars used on-road. Most important, it makes it

necessary to require seats belts. Seat belts can prevent LSV occupants

from falling out during abrupt maneuvers and prevent or reduce their

ejection during crashes.

Finally, vehicles with ``work performing equipment'' (i.e., certain

trucks) would have been LSVs under the proposal, although not required

to meet Standard No. 500. Under the final rule, these vehicles are no

longer included LSVs and must continue to meet truck FMVSSs. This

change is consistent with the rationale of this rulemaking, which is to

eliminate a regulatory conflict involving passenger-carrying vehicles.

Further, NHTSA concludes that the truck FMVSSs remain appropriate for

trucks with a speed capability between 20 and 25 miles per hour and

that these standards have not inhibited their introduction in the past.

III. Background

A. Introduction; Sub-25 MPH Vehicles and the Traditional Interpretation

of ``Motor Vehicles''

Title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 grants NHTSA regulatory authority over

``motor vehicles.'' All ``motor vehicles'' are subject to the Federal

motor vehicle safety standards promulgated by NHTSA pursuant to 49

U.S.C. 30111, and to the notification and remedy provisions of 49

U.S.C. 30118-30121. A ``motor vehicle'' is a vehicle ``manufactured

primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways'' 49

U.S.C. 30102(a)(6). The agency's interpretations of this term have

centered around the meaning of the word ``primarily.'' The agency has

generally interpreted the term to mean that a significant portion of a

vehicle's use must be on the public roads in order for the vehicle to

be considered to be a motor vehicle.

NHTSA's principal interpretation of the definition of ``motor

vehicle'' dates from 1969, and addressed the status of mini-bikes.

NHTSA said that it would initially defer to the manufacturer's judgment

that a vehicle was not a ``motor vehicle.'' However, the agency said,

the decision and subjective state of mind of the manufacturer ``* * *

cannot be conclusive * * *.'' NHTSA said that to resolve the question

of whether a particular vehicle is a motor vehicle, it would

invoke the familiar principle that the purpose for which an act,

such as the production of a vehicle, is undertaken may be discerned

from the actor's conduct in the light of the surrounding

circumstances. Thus, if a vehicle is operationally capable of being

used on public thoroughfares, and if in fact, a substantial

proportion of the consumer public actually uses [it] in that way, it

is a ``motor vehicle'' without regard to the manufacturer's intent,

however manifested. In such a case, it would be incumbent upon a

manufacturer of such a vehicle either to alter the vehicle's design,

configuration, and equipment to render it unsuitable for on-road use

or, by compliance with applicable motor vehicle safety standards, to

render the vehicle safe for use on public streets, roads, and

highways.

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

To resolve borderline cases, NHTSA set forth criteria that it said

it would employ in determining whether a particular vehicle is a

``motor vehicle.'' The agency stated:

[p]erhaps the most important of these [criteria] is whether state

and local laws permit the vehicle in question to be used and

registered for use on public highways. The nature of the

manufacturer's promotional and marketing activities is also evidence

of the use for which the vehicle is manufactured.

Noting the comparative rarity of mini-bike use on public streets,

and that the registration of mini-bikes for use on public streets was

precluded by laws of most jurisdictions unless they were equipped with

Standard No.108-type lighting devices, NHTSA said it would not consider

mini-bikes to be ``motor vehicles'' if their manufacturers met the

following criteria:

(1) Do not equip them with devices and accessories that render them

lawful for use and registration for use on public highways under

state and local laws;

(2) Do not otherwise participate or assist in making the vehicles

lawful for operation on public roads (as by furnishing certificates

of origin or other title document, unless those documents contain a

statement that the vehicle was not manufactured for use on public

streets, roads, or highways);

(3) Do not advertise or promote them as vehicles suitable for use on

public roads;

(4) Do not generally market them through retail dealers of motor

vehicles; and

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

vehicles were not manufactured for use on public streets, roads, or

highways and warning operators against such use.

The agency's interpretations since 1969 have added new elements to

the mini-bike criteria for determining whether vehicles capable of on-

road use are ``motor vehicles.'' The most important exclude vehicles

that have ``abnormal'' configurations and a top speed of 20 miles per

hour or less. As an example, NHTSA informed Trans2 Corporation in 1994

that its ``low-speed electric vehicle'' intended for use in residential

communities, university campuses, and industrial complexes was not a

``motor vehicle'' because it had a top speed of 20 mph and unusual body

features that made it readily distinguishable from ``motor vehicles.''

These features included an oval-shaped passenger compartment, taillamps

built into headrests, and a configuration the

[[Page 33199]]

approximate size and height of a golf cart. On the other hand, in 1995,

NHTSA informed Goodlife Motors Corporation that its ``super golf car''

was a motor vehicle because it had a top speed of 29 mph and its

configuration resembled that of a prototype Volkswagen passenger car.

B. 1996 Request for Regulatory Relief

In the spring of 1996, Bombardier, Inc., asked NHTSA to make

regulatory changes to permit the introduction of a new class of 4-

wheeled vehicle that is small, relatively slow-moving, and low-cost.

The company had identified retirement communities in the Sunbelt states

as likely prospects for a NEV that it was developing. Bombardier's NEV

is a two-passenger vehicle, closed at the top but open at the sides,

intended for use on city streets at speeds up to 25 miles per hour. It

looks very much like a very small passenger car. The Bombardier NEV

will be available with a ``low speed golf mode'' option that reduces

the vehicle's maximum speed to 15 miles per hour when the ignition key

is turned from ``D''(rive) to ``G''(olf). However, because Bombardier's

NEV would have been classified as a passenger car under the agency's

existing interpretations and regulations and because its NEV could not

meet the FMVSSs for passenger cars, Bombardier could not offer its

small vehicle for sale in the United States.

Accordingly, Bombardier asked the agency to change its longstanding

interpretations of what constitutes a motor vehicle as they apply to 4-

wheeled vehicles. Under those interpretations, vehicles that were used

on-road, but that had a distinctive configuration setting them apart

from the normal traffic flow and that were not capable of exceeding 20

miles per hour, were not regarded as motor vehicles. The company asked

that the maximum speed threshold used in the agency's interpretations

be increased from 20 miles to 25 miles per hour. Bombardier stated that

limiting the top speed of its NEV to 20 miles per hour would compromise

the ability of the NEV to maneuver in traffic on public streets where

it would be operating in a mix with larger and faster vehicles, and

limit the marketability of the NEV. Accordingly, it sought a revision

of the NHTSA interpretation instead.

C. Pre-rulemaking Study and 1996 Public Meetings

Since the use of sub-25 mph vehicles on public roads was a

relatively new phenomenon, NHTSA took special steps to acquire

information regarding such use. First, the agency commenced a survey of

state laws regarding the use of golf cars on public roads. NHTSA found

that the statutes of various states, e.g., California, Arizona, and

Florida, gave local governments the authority to allow the use of

``golf carts'' on public streets. California has authorized all of its

cities and counties to establish a Golf Cart Transportation Plan area

in which golf carts are permitted to operate on ``golf cart lanes,''

defined as ``roadways * * * shared with pedestrians, bicyclists, and

other motorists in the plan area.'' Each plan must include minimum

design criteria for safety features on golf carts as well. Arizona

provides for registration of both NEVs and golf cars, each of which is

defined as a vehicle with a maximum speed of not more than 25 miles per

hour, and forbids NEVs from being driven on public roads with posted

speed limits higher than 35 miles per hour. Florida has no speed

restrictions for golf cars, but requires them to be equipped with

``efficient brakes, reliable steering apparatus, safe tires, a rearview

mirror, and red reflectorized warning devices in both the front and

rear.'' That state permits operation of golf cars on county roads which

have been designated by a county for use by golf cars, or on city

streets which have been so designated by a city. Golf cars cannot be

operated during the hours between sunset and sunrise under California

and Florida law, except that local entities may allow nighttime use of

golf cars equipped with headlamps, taillamps and stop lamps.

NHTSA decided to study the California statutes in detail because

that state appeared to have the most extensive requirements concerning

the on-road safety of golf cars. In 1992, California amended its

Streets and Highway Code (``CSHC'') to authorize the City of Palm

Desert to establish a Golf Cart Transportation Pilot Program (CSHC

Secs. 1930-37), and later adopted amendments to giving similar

authority to any city or county in California. As noted above, this

legislation allows local jurisdictions to establish a Golf Cart

Transportation Plan area in which golf cars are permitted to operate on

``golf cart lanes'', defined as ``roadways * * * shared with

pedestrians, bicyclists, and other motorists in the plan area'' (CSHC

1951). Each plan must include minimum design criteria for safety

features on golf cars as well (CSHC 1961).

A plan under the California law must also include a permit process

for golf cars to ensure that they meet the minimum design criteria

(CSHC 1961). At that time, those criteria were required to include seat

belts. \16\ Also, the California law requires an operator to have a

valid California driver's license and carry a minimum amount of

insurance.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ The requirement for seat belts was replaced in September

1997 by a provision authorizing, but not requiring golf cart

transportation plans to include a requirement for seat belts.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, the law requires a plan to allow only golf cars

equipped with the requisite safety equipment to be operated on

``separated golf cart lanes'' identified in the plan. Lane striping on

the pavement surface is sufficient for a lane to qualify as a

``separated golf cart lane.''

Pursuant to this law, the City of Palm Desert drew up and

implemented a golf car transportation plan. As required by then

existing state law, the plan included a requirement for seat belts.

NHTSA has been informed by the City of Palm Desert that this plan will

cover NEVs as well as golf cars.

Under that plan, there are three classes of golf car facilities:

A ``Class I Golf Cart Path,'' completely separated from

public roads, for use by golf cars and bicycles only.

A ``Class II Golf Cart Lane,'' marked on public roads with

posted speed limits up to 45 miles per hour (the separate lane is

designated by striping), for use by golf cars and bicycles only.

A ``Class III Golf Cart Route,'' i.e., public roads with

speed limits of 25 miles per hour or less (the route is identified by

placing Golf Cart Route signs along roadways). They are for shared use

by golf cars and automobile traffic.

To gather further information, NHTSA held a public meeting on July

18, 1996, in the City of Palm Desert, attended by state, county, and

city officials from both California and Arizona, golf car

manufacturers, owners, a dealer, and two NEV manufacturers.

Fourteen commenters spoke at the meeting, all expressing support

for the use of small, 4-wheeled electric vehicles on city streets

because of environmental enhancement, consumer benefits, and a good

safety record.

The first speaker was Roy Wilson, representing the fourth district

of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, a member of the governing

board of the South Coast Air Quality Management District and a member

of the Riverside County Transportation Commission. He asked for NHTSA's

``approval in allowing Neighborhood Electric Vehicles and other slow-

moving vehicles to operate on public roadways and to increase the

maximum speed limit to 25 miles an hour.'' Supervisor

[[Page 33200]]

Wilson advised the panel that ``you have a unique opportunity to

provide leadership in an area of public policy which has both

transportation and air quality ramifications and which directly

addresses the lifestyle of our growing senior population.'' With

respect to the golf car program, which was established when he was a

member of the City of Palm Desert Council, Supervisor Wilson stated

that

it has reduced congestion on city streets, provided affordable user

friendly alternatives to transportation needs, and based on this

experience as well as those in areas--programs that are similar in

areas like Davis [California]; Sun City, Arizona and Lady Lake,

Florida, I believe this program has tremendous potential.

Supervisor Wilson stated that favorable action by NHTSA

would expand the pool of electric vehicles which * * * from an

environmental, primarily air quality perspective, * * * are also

extremely beneficial. They do not emit toxins including carbon

monoxide into the air.

He was followed by Ramon Diaz, the city manager of the City of Palm

Desert. Mr. Diaz told the panel that ``the golf cart program has been

very successful * * * Areas of the city that are being annexed in are

asking us, `When can we have our golf cart lanes? When can we begin

driving our golf carts?'''

The next commenter, Commander Steven Bloomquist of the Palm Desert

Section, Riverside Sheriff's Office, spoke ``from a law enforcement

perspective.'' Initially, there were concerns

about the mixing of slower moving vehicles with faster moving

vehicles and also the size difference, mentioning the physics of the

speed difference between golf carts and passenger vehicles and

trucks and the like.

However, Commander Bloomquist had been reassured after his three

year experience with the program:

To date * * * we have not had any accidents involving the larger

vehicles which move at a greater speed with the slower moving golf

carts.

Assemblyman James F. Battin, Jr., represented by his district

manager Kim Estock, addressed the importance of alternative

transportation for senior citizens:

With a limited income comprised of social security and perhaps a

small retirement fund, some seniors have been able to cut the cost

of an automobile with insurance out of their budget altogether

because of the option of using an electric vehicle with a one time

purchase cost.

The California commenters were supported by those from Arizona,

beginning with R. H. Stranger, regional manager of Southern California

Edison for Coachella Valley. Mr. Stranger was followed by David

Bentler, Electric Transportation Project Manager for the largest

electric utility in Arizona (Arizona Public Service Economic and

Community Development). Mr. Bentler showed a video in which the

affordability, accessibility, and utility of the NEV were promoted by

the [unidentified] executive director of the homeowners association of

Westport Village as well as by the Village's recreational office

manager, Donna Highley, two Village residents, Joan and Larry Thomas,

Jerry Unger, a director of the Sun City Homeowners' Association, and

Ray Prendergast of the Sierra Club.

Arizona golf car dealer, Steve Pohle of Sun City, spoke in favor of

allowing the vehicles he sells to use the public roads at speeds up to

25 miles per hour. He said that

(i)t is [a speed] that many of our customers obtain now with their

golf carts and are doing it safely. I think the biggest advantage of

that speed is the ability to be able to, after stopping at an

intersection or wherever they are traveling, * * * quickly maneuver

out of the way of traffic.

The agency held another public meeting in Washington, D.C., on July

25, 1996. At that meeting, NGCMA indicated its objection to the

requirement in the California statutes and in the City of Palm Desert

plan for seat belts. NGCMA viewed the requirement as ``antithetical to

the personal safety of drivers and occupants of golf cars.'' The

association thought that legislative bodies have ``a very limited

understanding of the physical limitations of the golf car as it

presently is constructed and the consequent susceptibility for personal

injury and even death, if seat belts were to be required.'' NGCMA

apprised the panel of the industry's standard, ANSI/NGCMA Z130.1-1993.

It presented reasons why the industry believed that a golf car should

not be considered a ``motor vehicle,'' i.e., it stated that golf cars

are designed primarily for use on golf courses and not the public

streets. The association noted that the industry does not equip golf

cars with equipment that make them lawful for registration and use on

the public roads. It argued that accordingly if an owner chooses to

operate a golf car on the public roads, the manufacturer should not be

penalized for it. NGCMA further stated that ``(t)he maximum recommended

speed for golf cars under ANSI/NGCMA Z130.1 is 15 miles per hour.'' In

addition, it stated that ``the golf car manufacturers believe that any

speed in excess of 15 miles per hour begins to approach problems with

stability, and increases the risk of injury or death on account of the

loss of stability and increased braking distance.'' (Transcript, July

25, 1996, p. 15)

Given NHTSA's developing interest, NGCMA asked that the agency

consider the following:

(1) Initiate steps to preempt all state and local regulation of golf

cars on public roads * * * until a thorough investigation and

analysis has been made of the safety issues and optimum responses to

these issues;

(2) Mandate speed limits not to exceed 15 miles per hour for any

golf car used on public streets and highways;

(3) Solicit from the golf car manufacturers recommendations for

safety accessories that might be utilized or recommended for golf

cars whose owners desire to utilize their golf cars on public

streets and highways;

(4) Advise NGCMA of what additional signage or documentation, if

any, should preferably be furnished golf car purchasers to ensure

the purchaser understands the golf car was not manufactured for use

on public streets * * * and cautioning operators against such use

unless the vehicle is equipped with whatever minimum requirements

might be deemed appropriate by NHTSA;

(5) Consider defining and regulating light-weight vehicles capable

of being driven on public roads as * * * NEVs, to distinguish NEVs

from golf cars which are self-regulated pursuant to ANSI/NGCMA

Z130.1. References to ``golf cars'' as such should be deleted from

any state and federal laws and regulations dealing with motor

vehicles.

Further, NGCMA said that NHTSA ``needs to preempt state and local

initiatives on this subject until NHTSA has clearly identified the

safety issues and appropriate responses to these issues in a cautious

and careful manner.''

NHTSA had also asked for written comments from those who could not

attend its public meetings. The commenters included representatives of

state and local governments including law enforcement officials,

manufacturers and users of NEVs and golf cars, representatives of

utilities, a public interest group, and other interested persons.

Specifically, written comments were received from Rep. Sonny Bono, and,

in the order received, from Lois Wolk (mayor, City of Davis), J.

Douglass Lynn (Lynn & Associates with a subsequent submission as well),

Bombardier, Dr. Tim Lynch (Director, Center for Economic Forecasting

and Analysis, Institute for Science and Public Affairs, Florida State

University), the City of Palm Desert, Richard S. Kelley (president,

Southern California Association of Governments, two comments by Mr.

Thomas of Trans2

[[Page 33201]]

Corporation,\17\ Jim Douglas (assistant director, Motor Vehicle

Division, Arizona Department of Transportation, the written remarks of

the NGCMA general counsel, several video tapes, Dr. James M. Lents

(executive officer, South Coast Air Quality Management District),

George Boal (resident of the City of Palm Desert), Marilyn D.

McLaughlin (resident of the City of Palm Desert), David Guthrie (deputy

director, Arizona Department of Commerce, Harry C. Gough (automotive

engineering professional specialist, Connecticut Department of Motor

Vehicles), Paul and Jacklyn Schlagheck (residents of Lady Lake,

Florida), Dr. Gerald Donaldson (senior research director, Advocates for

Highway and Auto Safety (``Advocates''), Jim Prentice (resident of Port

St. Lucie, Florida), Paul Jackson Rice, Esq. (Arent, Fox, Kintner,

Plotkin & Kahn), Sheriff Ralph E. Ogden of Yuma, Arizona, Lawrence

Lingbloom (Sierra Club California), Cynthia Kelly, Esq., (government

relations counsel, Golf Course Superintendents Association of America),

the Board of Directors of the Palm Desert Country Club Association,

Gerald W. (``Wally'') Powell (reliability engineer, E-Z-GO Textron

(``E-Z-GO''), Bob Doyle (assistant sheriff, patrol and investigations

division, Riverside County Sheriff's Office), Wayne Balmer (community

development director, Mesa, Arizona), and Marvin B. Jaques (vice

president special projects, Ransomes American Corporation

(``Cushman''), the manufacturer of Cushman utility vehicles.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ After Trans2 submitted comments on the notice of proposed

rulemaking in this proceeding, its assets were purchased by Global

Electric MotorCars (GEM) of Fargo, North Dakota.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In brief, the governmental authorities and the public supported the

on-road use of electric golf cars and NEVs as addressing the public

interest in a cleaner environment. Users noted approvingly the mobility

that is afforded by the ability to use golf cars and NEVs on the public

roads as an alternative to the passenger car for short in-town trips.

These groups testified to the absence of any on-road safety problems

involving golf cars and opposed any regulation by NHTSA that would

curtail driving them on the public roads, or that would increase their

costs. Golf car manufacturers objected to the possible classification

of their products as ``motor vehicles'' and wished to remain free of

Federal regulation.

D. Regulatory Options Considered

After considering the results of its survey of state and local

locals and its public meetings, the agency identified three options for

responding to Bombardier's request. The first was to grant Bombardier's

request to revise the agency's interpretive test for determining

whether an on-road vehicle is a motor vehicle by raising the threshold

top speed capability from 20 miles per hour to 25 miles per hour. This

option had a number of drawbacks. If the agency had granted

Bombardier's request, it would have placed LSVs beyond its regulatory

reach. This would have been undesirable from a safety standpoint since,

as noted above, there appeared to be a greater need for Federal action

with respect to LSVs than with respect to slower vehicles. Further, by

relinquishing its jurisdiction over these vehicles, NHTSA would have

lost the flexibility to adjust its LSV regulatory actions in response

to any changes in the safety record of those vehicles. Finally, this

approach would have allowed the states to adopt differing requirements

for the same aspects of safety performance, vitiating the intent of

Congress that motor vehicles be subject to a uniform national set of

Federal safety standards. For these reasons, NHTSA decided not to grant

Bombardier's request.

The second option was to maintain the existing line of

interpretations and vehicle classifications, under which all vehicles

capable of being driven at speeds of more than 20 miles per hour,

regardless of their configuration, size or weight, are treated as

``motor vehicles'' and are subject to the same safety performance

requirements. But simply leaving the current interpretations and

vehicle classifications in place effectively would have subjected LSVs

to requirements they could not meet and thereby effectively prohibited

the manufacture and sale of LSVs. Thus, this option would not be

responsive to the growing public interest in using low-cost and low-

speed 4-wheeled vehicles within limited operating environments.

The third option was for the agency to revise its existing system

of vehicle classifications by creating a new class of vehicles

comprising LSVs and applying to them new safety requirements that would

be appropriate for and accommodate this emerging form of transportation

while addressing its safety needs. Developing this option necessitated

defining the new class of vehicles in such a way as to include the

appropriate vehicles and exclude others. It appeared that standards

applicable to current passenger cars could not, and need not, be

applied in all aspects to LSVs, but it was not clear what standard

should take their place. Moreover, since LSVs had not entered the

country's motor fleet in significant numbers, there were few crash and

injury data on which to base a judgment about the extent and nature of

the safety need.

Despite these challenges and uncertainties, the agency determined

the third option to be the most prudent approach and accordingly used

it as the basis for its proposal.

E. 1997 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Based on the information gathered through autumn of 1996, NHTSA

developed a proposed regulation for LSVs, a new vehicle class including

both NEVs and golf cars with a top speed between 15 and 25 miles per

hour. Both types of vehicles have similar design and operational

characteristics and are likely to have common safety problems. As such,

NHTSA decided that the issues of the proper regulatory treatment for

them should be considered together.

The basic jurisdictional issue was how to differentiate between

golf cars that were manufactured exclusively for use on golf courses

and those that are being permitted by states and municipalities to be

operated as on-road vehicles. NHTSA tentatively decided to adopt a

speed criterion to address this question. The industry's standard

Z130.1, which applies to all golf cars, contains a specification for

``Maximum vehicle speed ``(paragraph 9.6.1) under which ``(t)he average

speed [of runs in opposite directions] shall not exceed 15 mi/h (24 km/

h)'' (paragraph 9.6.1.3). Further, NGCMA stated at the July 25, 1996

public meeting that its primary activity since its inception had been

the promotion and sponsorship of standard Z130.1 and that 100 percent

of its members adhered to it. Accordingly, the record before the agency

at the time of its proposal indicated that if a golf car could go

faster than 15 miles per hour, the maximum speed permitted by the

industry standard for golf cars to be used solely on golf courses, the

golf car was not only more likely to be driven on the public streets

than slower golf cars, but was intended by its manufacturer to be so

used. For these reasons, NHTSA chose a maximum speed capability of 15

miles per hour to distinguish between golf cars truly manufactured for

exclusive golf course use, and faster golf cars that might properly be

considered ``motor vehicles'' for purposes of Federal safety

regulation.

In considering what safety equipment to propose requiring, NHTSA

reviewed the requirements of the states and municipalities for golf

cars to be used on the public roads, and found them

[[Page 33202]]

varied and sometimes unclear. The exception was the City of Palm

Desert. The city requires ``golf carts'' offered for registration for

on-road use to be equipped with headlamps, front and rear turn signal

lamps, taillamps, stop lamps, rear side reflex reflectors, rearview

mirrors, a parking brake, horn, windshield, and seat belts.

Since a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must be ``reasonable,

practicable, and appropriate'' for the types of motor vehicles to which

it applies, NHTSA reviewed the record to see whether imposition of the

City of Palm Desert equipment requirements would be reasonable,

practicable and appropriate for golf cars and NEVs. Steve Pohle had

told the NHTSA panel at the meeting in the City of Palm Desert that

Arizona requires street-legal golf cars to have head lamps, stop lamps,

taillamps, a horn, and a rearview mirror. He added, ``the majority of

the [golf] cars I was speaking about are all equipped that way, so if

they are using it on the street * * * they are equipped that way. We

also always equip them, although it's not required by the state, with a

Plexiglass windshield.'' In reply to a question as to the difference in

cost ``between a cart equipped versus a cart not equipped,'' Mr. Pohle

estimated ``* * * about $400 if we're including the windshield which

would be about $115 of that.'' The NEV manufacturers represented that

their vehicles would be manufactured from the start with all the

equipment required by the City of Palm Desert.

Accordingly, NHTSA considered the requirements of the City of Palm

Desert to be an appropriate basis for a proposed Federal safety

standard for LSVs. It was reasonable and appropriate because NEVs were

designed to comply from the start, and testimony indicated that the

equipment was easily added to existing golf car designs. It seemed

practicable because there was testimony that new vehicles could be

equipped at reasonable cost. It addressed the need for safety because

the experience of the City of Palm Desert had indicated that on-road

safety problems were virtually nonexistent.

Therefore, NHTSA proposed that LSVs (defined in the proposal as

golf cars with maximum speeds between 15 and 25 miles per hour, and all

vehicles other than motorcycles and vehicles with work-performing

equipment, with a top speed of not more than 25 miles per hour), be

equipped with the same equipment required by the City of Palm Desert.

(January 8, 1997; 62 FR 1077) There were several minor differences.

First, NHTSA proposed that the windshield be of AS-1 glazing, the type

that is found in passenger cars. Second, NHTSA did not propose that

LSVs be equipped with horns. No other FMVSS requires the installation

of horns because motor vehicles were equipped with horns long before

the first FMVSS was issued. NHTSA believed that LSV manufacturers would

similarly incorporate horns as a matter of course. Third, the agency

proposed to require a label indicating that LSVs should not be driven

at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour on any road. NHTSA proposed

that the new standard be designated ``Standard No. 100.''

F. Summary of Comments on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Over 100 comments were received from three major groups: elected

national, state, and local officials; golf car manufacturers and

dealers; and advocacy groups. (NHTSA's Docket Room has assigned a

number to each comment. For example, the 20th comment is denoted ``96-

65-NO1-020.'' For simplicity, in discussing specific submissions in

this preamble to the final rule, the agency uses only the last three

digits to identify the comment, i.e., ``020.'')

1. State and Local Officials; Utilities

State and local officials, with one exception, supported the

proposal. These included Ralph E. Ogden, Yuma County (AZ) Sheriff's

Office (002); Rollie K. Seebert, Maricopa County (CA) Sheriff (005);

Richard S. Kelly, Mayor, City of Palm Desert (CA)(006); D.O. Helmick

(California Highway Patrol (013); Dottie Berger, Commissioner,

Hillsborough (FL) (014); Michael D. Branham, Assistant City Manager,

Surprise (AZ)(015); Assemblyman Jim Battin (CA)(019); David Guthrie,

Arizona Department of Commerce (021); Ted Hidinger, Electric

Transportation Manager, Arizona Public Service Economic Development

Department (026); Lois Wolk, Mayor, Davis (CA)(027); L. Denno,

California Highway Patrol (028); Nancy J. Deller, Deputy Director,

California Energy Commission (036), Richard D. Lamm, former Governor,

Colorado (056); Pamela Bass, Vice President, Southern California Edison

(061); Robert H. Cross, Chief Mobile Source Control Division,

California Air Resources Board (80); and Kirk Brown, Secretary,

Illinois Department of Transportation (088).

The principal reasons for supporting the proposal were the

enhancement of air quality that electric-powered LSVs would bring, and

the importance of developing alternative forms of transportation. This

was most cogently expressed by David Guthrie, Deputy Director, Arizona

Department of Commerce (021), who said:

NEV's * * * provide an affordable, environmentally friendly

alternative to gasoline powered automobiles that is consistent with

our goal of promoting ``cleaner'' vehicles without hampering

economic growth or putting undue financial burdens on our citizens.

We believe the proposed rule is appropriate for three reasons.

First, it allows local and state governments to continue to regulate

the use of these vehicles, giving them the ability to set speed

zones, require specialized lanes and establish other requirements as

appropriate. Second, the draft rule [would require] manufacturers to

equip LSVs with basic safety features like seat belts and mirrors.

Finally, the rule sends a strong message to states that their

alternative vehicle policies are being received with respect and

support in Washington * * *.

The one exception was C. I. MacGillvray, Director, Department of

Engineering, Iowa Department of Transportation (022) who expressed

concern ``at the State level'' for the changes ``required to safely

integrate these vehicles into legal operations on Iowa's public

roadways,'' citing licensing of operators, registration of vehicles,

financial responsibility, and the like.

(B) Manufacturers and Dealers of Golf Cars and Neighborhood Electric

Vehicles

The two identified categories of vehicles that would be covered by

the final rule are NEVs and golf cars. NEV manufacturers and dealers

supported the proposed rule. Commenters included James M. Thomas, Vice

President Sales and Marketing, Trans2 Corporation (007); Bombardier

Corporation through its outside counsels Paul Jackson Rice and Lawrence

F. Henneberger (008); Charles E. Towner, a franchised dealer of

personal and low-speed community vehicles (AZ)(030); and Delmar C.

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

The initial response of the golf car industry was to oppose the

proposal. Comments were submitted by A. Montague Miller, president and

CEO of Club Car, Inc. (011); the NGCMA general counsel (016); Gerald W.

Powell, Reliability Engineer, E-Z-Go Textron, Inc. (017); Scott J.

Stevens, President, Western Golf Car Manufacturing, Inc. (039); and

Charles A. Fain, Vice President Design Engineering, Club Car, Inc.

(043).

The principal objections were to the proposed requirements for AS-1

windshields and for seat belts. The industry asked that an alternative

windshield material (polycarbonate) be permitted because it ``as well

as other

[[Page 33203]]

transparent materials are more effective to provide shatterproof

protection to occupants of golf cars.'' Seat belts were opposed in

NGCMA's comments because they

may enhance the risk of injury or even death if the occupant is

restrained in the vehicle by a seat belt assembly upon rollover * *

*. Golf carts are equipped with a standard hip or hand hold

restraint located towards the outside of the seat. However, the hand

hold does not prevent the occupant from jumping or leaping out of

the golf car to avoid further injury if the golf cart is about to

roll over. For this reason, * * * in lieu of a seat belt requirement

for golf cars, a hand hold or hip restraint should be required as

set forth in ANSI/NGCMA Z 130.1.

The industry also objected to the proposed effective date of 45

days after the issuance of the final rule, saying that ``a minimum of

24 to 36 months'' would be required ``to achieve the design and tooling

required by the proposed standard.'' Finally, the industry submitted

that

to properly comply with the seat belt FMVSS Standard No. 209,

together with the other items to be required, the manufacturing cost

to comply will exceed $800 to $1,000 per vehicle without regard to

design and tooling expenditures approximating $500,000 per

manufacturer.

Golf car manufacturers and dealers apprised Members of Congress of

their opposition to the proposal. As a result, letters of inquiry were

received from a number of Senators and Representatives (see, e.g.,

comment 033, which was signed by six Representatives from Georgia).

3. Advocacy Organizations

NHTSA also received comments from a number of public interest or

advocacy organizations. These included: Consumer Federation of America

(``CFA'')(001), Advocates for Highway & Auto Safety

(``Advocates'')(020), Sierra Club California (032), and Washington

Legal Foundation (``WLF'')(038).

Sierra Club California supported the proposed rule without

qualification. It stated that

* * * (i)t was happy to see the federal government is acting to form

a consensus regarding the use of LSVs at the national and state

levels. The Sierra Club California hopes that other states and

municipalities will follow your lead in developing localized

alternative transportation program consistent with this rule, and in

consultation with the appropriate law enforcement and public safety

agencies.

It stated further that ``(a)s an alternative to automobiles, LSVs

can reduce the number of trips by car and eliminate the need for cold

starts, e.g., the first few minutes of operation where the majority of

toxic emissions are generated from gasoline-powered vehicles.''

However, the other advocacy organizations were not in favor of the

proposal. WLF opposed subjecting LSVs to safety performance

requirements, arguing that ``NHTSA has not shown that there is a

problem that requires attention.'' It cites the preamble's statements

that ``there are virtually no accident data concerning [golf cars]''

and ``intuitively, it appears that passengers in LSVs might be at

significant risk because of the small size and relative fragility of

LSVs.'' In WLF's view, ``NHTSA has not shown that any safety problem

exists and has no justification whatsoever for implementing these

costly and extensive regulations.'' WLF also argued that, given the

alleged propensity of golf cars to roll over, the net effect of

requiring seat belts could be to increase deaths and injuries.

On the other hand, Advocates and CFA opposed allowing the

manufacture and sale of a class of passenger vehicles subject to a

lesser set of safety performance requirements than those applicable to

passenger cars. Advocates opposed allowing ``a new class of motor

vehicles on public roads which are unable to protect their occupants in

crashes up to 25 mph.'' Advocates argued that the agency had not

provided any documentation of the current on-road crash experience of

golf cars, that the agency had not adequately examined the regulatory

and safety record of allegedly similar vehicles in Japan and France,

that there was no agency plan to organize the collection, retrieval and

analysis of LSV crash data, and that pressure for inexpensive

transportation and claims of environmental benefit would inevitably

lead to the designing and marketing of LSVs that are increasingly car-

like and to future requests for the agency to increase the upper speed

threshold for LSVs. CFA, too, thought that safety problems would arise

with the advent of a new, small class of vehicles, and recommended that

all vehicles with a maximum speed of 15 miles per hour or more be

required to meet all Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

4. Other Commenters

A number of additional comments were submitted by other persons,

some of them supporting the proposal, others opposing it.

Dr. Tim Lynch, Director, Center for Economic Forecasting and

Analysis, Florida State University, concluded that promotion of

electric vehicles would lead to fuel savings and would benefit the

environment (023).

Kevin Breen, Chair of the SAE Special Purpose Vehicle Committee,

apprised the agency of SAE Standard J2258, Light Utility Vehicles,

issued in 1996, and draft SAE J2358, Closed Community Vehicles. The

light utility vehicles covered by SAE Standard J2258 are off-highway

vehicles 72 inches or less in overall width, with a gross vehicle

weight rating (GVWR) of 5,000 pounds or less and a maximum design speed

of less than 25 miles per hour. The standard specifies requirements for

``elements of design, operation, and maintenance.'' The Committee is

studying ``the use of golf-car based vehicles for closed community

applications,'' with attention to ``issues such as braking, lighting,

crashworthiness, stability, etc.'' In his opinion, NHTSA's proposed

standard is inappropriate because

1. The standard permits vehicles to be operated in an on-highway

situation in a traffic mix with typical highway vehicles without

adequate consideration for braking, crashworthiness, etc.

2. The proposed requirements for seat belts in an open vehicle

are contrary to current occupant protection technology relating to

open vehicles (i.e., motorcycles, snowmobiles, etc.).

* * * * *

4. The exemption of certain ``work class'' vehicles from this

standard opens acceptance of their use in a highway situation

creating a potential hazard for both the users of those vehicles and

the general motoring public who may interact with them.

5. The standard as currently drafted includes too broad of a

scope of vehicles. If adequate data exists, rulemaking could be

limited at this time to NEVs. Vehicles such as golf car or golf-cart

based vehicles should not be considered in proposed FMVSS 100 at

this time.

Two residents of Ypsilanti, Michigan questioned the wisdom of

NHTSA's action (003, 004). Manufacturers of vehicles that are not

``motor vehicles,'' as that term is interpreted by NHTSA, wanted

reassurance that their products would not inadvertently be included in

the new rule (Truck Manufacturers Association (009), Toro (012), and

Industrial Truck Association (024)). The American Insurance Association

claimed that NHTSA's action is an ``abuse of discretion'' because the

agency lacks authority to dilute safety regulations and increase

crashes, deaths and injuries. That organization argued further that the

proposal was ``arbitrary and capricious'' because the agency lacks

sufficient crash data to enable it to make reasonable projections about

the safety record of LSVs. (010)

[[Page 33204]]

Other commenters were concerned with specific aspects of the

proposed equipment. Transportation Safety Equipment Institute argued

that performance requirements should be specified for LSV lighting

devices (018). George Ziolo thought that LSVs should have a flashing

amber light at the rear or on the top as a low-speed warning (040). SMV

Technologies sent examples of a warning triangle which some states

require be affixed to farm tractors using the public roads, and

recommended that LSVs be similarly equipped (068).

G. Post-Comment Period Comments and Information

1. Manufacturers and Dealers of Golf Cars; Members of Congress

Although the comment period closed on February 24, 1997, a

substantial number of comments were received after that date. Many of

them were letters from Members of Congress on behalf of golf car

manufacturers, dealers, and users. The letters from the Members of

Congress, as well as the letters from the parties on whose behalf they

were writing, typically expressed many of the same concerns, e.g.,

concern that the proposal would regulate fleet and personal golf cars,

that requiring seat belts in golf cars might increase danger in a

rollover, and that AS-1 windshields would not be sufficiently

protective against golf balls.

In an August 12, 1997 letter, NGCMA submitted suggested revisions

to the agency's proposed standard. (NGCMA, 073) NGCMA suggested that

personal golf cars be defined as vehicles that may carry golf equipment

and have a maximum speed greater than 15, but less than 20 miles per

hour. It suggested that personal golf cars be regulated in the same

fashion as LSVs, except that personal golf cars would not be required

to have seat belts. Further, NGCMA suggested that personal golf cars

and any other LSV be permitted to have a windshield of ``shatter

resistant polymer'' instead of AS-1 glazing.

In a December 22, 1997 letter, NGCMA informed NHTSA its members

were amendable to equipping personal golf cars with all of the proposed

items of equipment, with two exceptions. NGCMA asked that its members

not be required to install seat belts and that they be given a choice

between using AS-1 glazing or shatter resistant polymer for the

windshield. It indicated that an effective date of from six to twelve

months after publication would be acceptable, provided that its

suggestions about seat belts and windshield glazing were adopted by the

agency. (NGCMA, 104). In the letter, that organization reaffirmed its

desire to limit the top speed of personal golf cars to 20 miles per

hour and indicated that the industry does not manufacture personal golf

cars which have a higher top speed.

During February 1998, the agency received letters from over 30

commenters who identified themselves, generally, as dealers of golf

carts and such other products as watercraft and motorcycles. All said

that the issuance of a final rule was necessary for their livelihood

and asked NHTSA to issue it immediately. These letters unqualifiedly

supported the proposal, without stating any reservations about to the

proposed requirements for windshields and seat belts.

In March 1988, over 30 dealers and distributors of Club Car golf

cars informed NHTSA that if the agency limited the seat belt

requirement as requested by NGCMA in its December 1997 letter, they

would not oppose the issuance of an LSV final rule. (March 20, 1998

letter from Eileen Bradner, Counsel to Club Car, Inc.)

2. Other sources

In February 1998, NHTSA obtained from the Consumer Product Safety

Commission (CPSC) data concerning injuries and deaths involving golf

car occupants. This information covers all types of golf cars, and all

uses (on and around golf courses and on streets and highways).

CPSC provided the agency with information from four different

sources:

A summary of incidents and national estimates for injuries

involving golf cars from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance

System (NEISS) for the years 1993 to 1997. NEISS is comprised of a

sample of hospitals that are statistically representative of hospital

emergency rooms nationwide. From the data collected, estimates can be

made of the numbers of injuries associated with consumer products and

treated in hospital emergency departments.

A printout of crash investigations involving golf cars,

conducted by CPSC on-site or by telephone. This information is obtained

from NEISS files, newspaper clippings, consumer complaints and

Underwriters Laboratory.

A printout of reported incidents involving golf cars. The

reports are obtained from CPSC's Medical Examiners and Coroners Alert

Program (MECAP), Underwriters Laboratory, American Trial Lawyers

Association, Consumers Union, and newspaper clippings.

A printout of death certificates in which a golf car was

mentioned. CPSC has contracts with all 50 State Health Departments to

provide information about death certificates that mention the use of

certain products, including golf cars.

The agency notes that there are limits to the conclusions that can

be drawn from these data for the purposes of this rulemaking. First,

only the data from the first of these four sources can be used to make

national projections about the size of health significance of the

operation of golf cars. Second, much of the CPSC data relate to

incidents that occurred when golf cars were being operated on a golf

course or in other off-road situations.

During March 1998, NHTSA's Vehicle Research Test Center (VRTC)

conducted a study of a Bombardier NEV, a Global Electric MotorCars NEV,

and a Yamaha golf car. As described in the study report, the study was

intended to provide the basis for an evaluation of the potential

stability of LSVs on public highways and the safety potential of these

vehicles in a crash. VRTC examined the vehicles with respect to seat

belts, stability, stopping distance, electrolyte spillage, and glazing,

and subjected them to braking and dynamic handling tests. The seat

belts on the NEVs were deemed to be anchored to adequate structure. The

golf car had no seat belts. Regarding stability, the study concluded

that an LSV with a static stability factor below 1.0 with two occupants

could probably tip easily in a tight turn at 20 mph. As for stopping

distance from 20 miles per hour, the Bombardier NEV easily passed the

requirements of FMVSS No. 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems, while the

Global Electric MotorCars NEV passed marginally. The golf car could not

meet these requirements. With respect to the issue of electrolyte

spillage in a crash or rollover, it was noted that the Bombardier NEV

appeared to be capable of shielding the occupants from the batteries so

long as the fiberglass shell was intact. The other NEV did not have the

batteries shielded from the occupant area. The golf car was gasoline-

powered. VRTC also conducted impact tests on windshield glazing, which

is discussed in some detail below under ``Safety Engineering Issues.''

In April 1998, NHTSA asked the City of Palm Desert for an update on

the implementation of its plan. In the 21 months since the agency's

public meeting in July 1996, the number of golf carts registered for

use under the plan rose from 193 to approximately 250. Two crashes have

occurred since then, although neither caused an injury. The

[[Page 33205]]

first crash occurred when the driver of a conventional car turned the

corner and hit a golf car that was being illegally driven in the

pedestrian crosswalk. In the second crash, a golf car operator had left

the City of Palm Desert plan area and was struck just over the border

of the next town, Indian Wells, when the golf car turned into the

driveway of a country club. As noted in the NPRM, the only crash that

occurred between 1993 and 1996 involved the overturning of a golf car

being operated by joy-riding teenagers.

IV. Final Rule and Resolution of Key Issues

A. Summary

The final rule establishes a new class of 4-wheeled vehicles,

called LSVs, and excludes them from passenger car class. LSVs are 4-

wheeled vehicles, other than trucks, whose maximum speed exceeds 20 but

is not greater than 25 miles per hour. By removing them from the

passenger car class, the rule relieves manufacturers of LSVs of the

need they would otherwise have of complying with the full range of

FMVSSs for those classes and substitutes Standard No. 500 as the only

applicable FMVSS. With the exception of the warning label, which was

not adopted, LSVs are required to have all the safety features and

equipment proposed in the NPRM, including seat belts, plus two

additional items added in response to comments: a VIN, and a reflex

reflector on the rear. However, as an alternative to an AS-1

windshield, an AS-5 plastic windshield may be used.

B. Authority and Safety Need for this Final Rule

NHTSA was presented with a variety of arguments regarding its

authority to regulate low-speed vehicles. WLF raised questions whether

the vehicles covered by the agency's proposal are motor vehicles. That

organization also argued that issuing the final rule would not promote

safety because there is no safety problem to be addressed. Conversely,

Advocates and CFA argued that excluding small vehicles from the FMVSSs

will create a safety problem. AIA and Advocates stated that the agency

had not adequately gathered and considered relevant data prior to

issuing the proposal, citing agency statements about the dearth of data

on LSV crashes and about the foreign experiences with small vehicles.

1. Low-Speed Vehicles are Motor Vehicles

Title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 grants NHTSA regulatory authority over

``motor vehicles.'' A ``motor vehicle'' is defined as a vehicle

``manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and

highways'' (Sec. 30102(a)(6)). As noted above, NHTSA's principal

interpretation of the definition of ``motor vehicle'' dates from 1969,

and addressed the status of mini-bikes. NHTSA said that if a type of

vehicle is physically capable of being operated on the public roads and

if a substantial portion of the users of those vehicles uses them on

the road, those vehicles are motor vehicles, without regard to the

intent of the manufacturer. It bears repeating that the agency said

that perhaps the most important criterion to be used in resolving

borderline cases

* * * is whether state and local laws permit the vehicle in

question to be used and registered for use on public highways. The

nature of the manufacturer's promotional and marketing activities is

also evidence of the use for which the vehicle is manufactured.

a. Speed-modified golf cars are motor vehicles. Not only are speed-

modified golf cars whose top speed is between 20 and 25 miles per hour

fast enough to be capable of being used on roads with low-posted speed

limits, but also their operation on public roads is commonplace.

18 (See the testimony regarding their on-road use in Arizona

at the agency's first public meeting.) Further, much of the on-road use

is not incidental to the playing of golf. Instead, many trips are made

for purposes unrelated to golf, such as shopping or visiting friends.

The agency notes that Club Car, one of the larger manufacturers of golf

cars, stated that the market for and use of personal golf cars are

largely limited to the states and local jurisdictions that permit the

on-road use of golf cars. NHTSA believes that it is reasonable to

conclude that the market for speed-modified golf cars is similarly

limited, and that virtually all users of those vehicles use them on the

road.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ Indeed, it is possible that the very modifications that are

made to enhance on-road performance could render speed-modified golf

cars unsuitable for golf course use if their low speed torque is

increased too much. Excessive torque could damage the turf on golf

courses.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although the agency does not regard the question of whether speed-

modified golf cars are motor vehicles to be a borderline one, the

agency notes that even if it were, those vehicles meet several of the

key criteria considered by the agency in borderline cases. As noted

above, 12 states authorize their local governments to permit general

purpose use of golf cars on designated roads and another four permit

more limited on-road use. A majority of those states require either

that the golf cars be registered or that the user have a driver's

license, or both. The modifiers of these vehicles do not label these

vehicles as being not manufactured for on-road use. Quite the contrary,

they equip them with the equipment required by states and local

jurisdictions for on-road use. Further, their top speed capability is

far above the maximum average permissible speed specified in the

voluntary industry for golf cars intended exclusively for use on golf

courses. Finally, they advertise the top speed capability of their

vehicles. Since driving these golf cars at or near their top speeds on

golf courses is presumably impermissible and since their on-road use is

commonplace, such advertising is tantamount to advertising them for on-

road use.

b. Neighborhood Electric Vehicles are Motor Vehicles. The agency

begins its analysis of whether NEVs are motor vehicles by noting that

neither of the two current NEV manufacturers contest that NEVs may

properly be regarded as motor vehicles under the Vehicle Safety Act.

The agency's analysis is essentially the same as that for speed-

modified golf cars, except that since only a few NEVs have been sold in

this country, the agency must base its analysis for NEVs on their

anticipated marketing and use. Not only are NEVs fast enough to be

capable of being used on roads with low-posted speed limits, but also

they are expected to be used extensively for that purpose. It is

further anticipated that much of the on-road use will not be incidental

to the playing of golf. NHTSA believes that it is reasonable to

conclude that the market for NEVs will be limited to the states and

local jurisdictions that permit the on-road use of golf cars or NEVs,

and that virtually all users of those vehicles will use them on the

road.

As in the case of speed-modified golf cars, the agency does not

regard the question of whether NEVs are motor vehicles to be a

borderline one. Nevertheless, the agency notes that even if it were,

those vehicles meet several of the key criteria considered by the

agency in borderline cases. 12 states authorize their local governments

to permit general purpose use of golf cars and/or NEVs on designated

roads and another four permit more limited on-road use. A majority of

those states require either that the golf cars or NEVs be registered or

that the user have a driver's license, or both. As originally

manufactured, these vehicles are equipped with the safety devices and

features required by states and local jurisdictions for on-road use.

Further, their top speed capability is far above the maximum average

permissible speed

[[Page 33206]]

specified in the voluntary industry for golf cars intended exclusively

for use on golf courses. While both NEV manufacturers provide a device

that can be used to reduce vehicle speeds to levels appropriate for

golf course use, that device is available from one of the manufacturers

only as an item of optional equipment. Finally, the two NEV

manufacturers advertise their vehicles for on-road use.

2. The Agency Has Authority to Regulate Anticipated as well as Current

Safety Problems

In response to WLF's argument, NHTSA observes that its authority is

preventive in nature. Congress has charged it with issuing standards to

protect the public against ``unreasonable risk'' of crashes and of

deaths and injuries resulting from crashes. 49 U.S.C. 30102(8) and

30111(a). This means that the existence of a risk is sufficient to

justify the issuance of standards. If the occurrence of deaths and

injuries is reasonably anticipated, NHTSA need not wait until they

actually begin to occur in large numbers before taking action to

prevent them.

3. Issuance of this Rule Appropriately Addresses an Anticipated Safety

Problem

a. Crash Data Show a Limited Safety Problem Involving the On-Road

Use of Fleet and Personal Golf Cars. Crash data have become available

since the NPRM showing that although deaths and serious injuries

resulting from the on-road use of golf cars are not numerous, they are

occurring. NHTSA's Fatal Analysis Reporting System (FARS) is a census

of all fatalities and fatal crashes occurring on U.S. roads open to the

public and resulting in the death of an occupant or nonmotorist within

30 days of the crash. FARS has records of nine deaths of golf car

occupants on the public roads from 1993 to February 1998. 19

Three of the deaths occurred in Arizona, three in North Carolina, one

each in California, Florida and Iowa. Eight of the nine deaths resulted

when the golf car collided with a car or truck. The ninth occurred when

the golf car ran off the road and its occupants were ejected. Data from

CPSC include an additional seven deaths in on-road crashes not included

in FARS, implying a total of 16 fatalities over a 5-year period. The

city that has recorded the most deaths appears to be Sun City, Arizona.

According to an Associated Press story dated March 12, 1998, there had

been four deaths in golf car crashes in Sun City since 1995.

20

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ Although designed to be a census of all traffic

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

fatalities reported by CPSC to NHTSA. The submissions from CPSC

include information on an additional seven deaths.

\20\ This number was confirmed in a June 3, 1988 telephone

conversation with Detective Jeffrey Childs of the Maricopa County

Sheriff's Department.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, NHTSA obtained data from CPSC regarding injuries and

deaths involving the operation of golf cars. This information covers

all types of golf cars, and all uses (on and around golf courses, as

well as on public streets and roads). CPSC provided the agency with

four different sources of information about golf cars. Three of these

were relevant:

1. A printout of reported incidents involving golf cars. The

reports are obtained from CPSC's Medical Examiners and Coroners Alert

Program, Underwriters Laboratory, American Trial Lawyers Association,

Consumers Union, consumer complaints, and newspaper clippings, and are

not statistically reliable for national estimates. The reported

incident data set included 19 on-road incidents between 1993 and

February 1998, 14 of which were fatalities. All 9 of the FARS cases

were included in these 14 cases. These fatalities mostly occurred when

the golf car collided with a passenger car or light truck on roadways.

2. A printout of death certificates in which a golf car was

mentioned. CPSC has contracts with all 50 State Health Departments to

provide information about death certificates that mention the use of

certain products, including golf cars; however, not all states reported

during the entire period. The Death Certificate file reported 3 on-road

fatalities involving golf cars during the period 1993 to February 1998.

One of these cases was included in the 14 cases mentioned above and 2

were not. Thus, there are a total of at least 16 on-road fatalities to

occupants of golf cars during the period 1993 to February 1998.

3. A summary of incidents and national estimates for injuries

involving golf cars from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance

System (NEISS) for the years 1993 to 1997. These data are a compilation

of information derived from reports of product-associated injuries

treated in hospital emergency departments that participate in the

National Electronic Injury Surveillance System. The NEISS estimates are

calculated using data from a probability sample of hospitals with

emergency departments located within the United States and its

territories.

The following table presents incidents for ``golf carts'' reported

by CPSC's NEISS during the years 1993-1997:

NEISS Reported Incidents

[1993-1997]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5 year

Type of injury 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 total

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Based on the data in the above table, the agency has estimated the

total national injuries associated with ``golf carts'' of all types and

uses (i.e., on-road as well as on golf courses) to be 6,372, 6,808,

7,603, and 7,218 for the years 1993 through 1996.

The agency estimates that there were an average of 222 on-road golf

car injuries per year over the 5-year period. This injury estimate is

calculated as follows: 7,000 injuries (national annual injury average

for 1993-1998) x 23 (on-road or vehicle-involved injuries) / 726

(NEISS reported incidents 1993-1997) = 222 annual average of national

injuries.

[[Page 33207]]

There is only 1 fatality involving a golf car in the 5 years of

NEISS data. However, based on the reported incident and death

certificate data provided to NHTSA, there were 16 on-road golf car

fatalities over a 5-year period, an average of 3 fatalities per year.

NHTSA anticipates that the number of on-road serious injuries and

deaths involving occupants of fleet and personal golf cars will grow

with the growth in number and speed of the same or similar vehicles on

the road. The number of golf cars operated on public roads is currently

limited. As more state legislatures authorize their local jurisdictions

to designate public roads for use of low-speed vehicles and other

vehicles, and especially as more local jurisdictions use that

authority, the sale and use of low-speed vehicles will increase.

Further, to the extent that NEV manufacturers are successful, it seems

likely that golf car manufacturers will respond to that competition by

intensifying their efforts to sell personal golf cars whose top speed

is between 15 and 20 miles per hour.

b. The States Have Adopted Laws Requiring Safety Equipment on Fleet

and Personal Golf Cars Used on Public Roads. The majority of the 12

states that have enacted legislation permitting all-purpose on-road use

of golf cars and/or NEVs believe that there is a need for safety

requirements and have taken steps to satisfy that need. Nine of those

12 states have mandated that those vehicles have specified safety

equipment if they are used on-road and a tenth state authorized its

local governments to adopt safety requirements. (See the table below.)

Further, in their comments on the NPRM, state officials in California,

Arizona, and Iowa indicated that they believe that the issuance of

Federal safety requirements is warranted.

States Permitting All-Purpose Golf Car Trips on Public Roads Within

Jurisdiction of Local Governments

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roads on which

State operation is Required safety

permitted equipment

------------------------------------------------------------------------

California................. On private and public Local government may

roadways designated require safety

by local government. devices. Headlamps,

taillamps,

reflectors, stop

lamps, and brakes

for nighttime

operation.

Nevada..................... On public roadways Headlamps,

designated by local taillamps,

government. reflectors, stop

lamps, mirror,

brakes and an

emblem placard for

slow moving

vehicles.

Arizona.................... On roadways with Headlamps,

posted speed limit taillamps,

of 35 mph or less. reflectors, stop

lamps, mirror,

brakes, and a

notice of

operations and

restrictions in

full view of

driver.

New Mexico................. On private and public An emblem placard or

roadways designated flashing yellow

by local government. light for slow

Carts may not be moving vehicles is

operated on state required.

highways.

Colorado................... On private and public Headlamps,

roadways designated taillamps,

by local government. reflectors, stop

lamps, mirror, and

brakes.

Wyoming.................... On public streets and Local government may

roadways designated require safety

by local government. devices.

Illinois \22\.............. On roadways Steering apparatus,

designated by local rearview mirror,

governments. front and rear red

reflectorized

warning devices,

slow moving vehicle

emblem, headlight,

brake lights and

turn signals

Minnesota.................. On roads designated Slow moving vehicle

by local government. emblem and a rear

view mirror.

Iowa....................... On private and public Slow moving vehicle

roadways designated emblem, bicycle

by local government. safety flag,

Carts may not be adequate brakes.

operated on primary Local government

roads. may require other

safety equipment.

Florida.................... On private and public Efficient brakes,

roadways designated reliable steering

by local government apparatus, safe

and in self- tires, rearview

contained retirement mirror, and red

communities. reflectorized

warning device in

front and rear.

Headlamps,

taillamps, and stop

lamps for nighttime

operation.

Georgia.................... On private and public None.

roadways designated

by local government.

Texas...................... On private and public None.

roadways designated

by local government.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

c. There is a similar, but greater anticipated safety problem

involving low-speed vehicles. Largely because of their greater speed,

the potential for growth in the numbers of LSVs, and in the number of

deaths and serious injuries associated with LSVs, is even greater.

NHTSA anticipates that sales of LSVs will steadily grow and that, as a

result, there will be increased exposure leading to increased numbers

of serious injuries and deaths. While the number of LSVs is limited

now, it will grow, particularly with the introduction and sale of NEVs.

To the extent that the NEV market expands, existing NEV manufacturers

will be induced to make further improvements to increase consumer

appeal and new manufacturers may be induced to enter the market. The

product improvements resulting from this competition will likely boost

sales further. Further, to the extent that NEV manufacturers are

successful, new manufacturers of speed-modified golf cars may be

induced to enter the market. Since LSVs will likely be faster than most

of the sub-25 mph vehicles on the road during 1993-1997, the crash

forces of single and multiple vehicle crashes involving LSVs will tend

to be greater than the crash forces in those 1993-1997 crashes. As a

result, the LSV crashes will be more likely to result in serious or

fatal injuries to their occupants. Further, the higher speed of an LSV,

while enabling a driver to pass through risky driving situations more

quickly, may also induce a driver to take risks in more situations.

d. This rule requires safety equipment on low-speed vehicles

consistent with their characteristics and operating environment.

Advocates and CFA were concerned about the risk to safety posed by a

growing class of small vehicles and argued that NHTSA's actions are

contrary to its statutory mandate

[[Page 33208]]

because they will exacerbate the risk. Their concern related to the

potential for crashes involving small vehicles such as LSVs and larger

ones that may be sharing the same roadway, and the threat that this

poses to occupants of LSVs.

NHTSA has carefully reviewed their argument about the effects of

this rulemaking. LSV safety, and thus the need for FMVSSs for LSVs,

will be determined by the combination of three factors: vehicle design

and performance; operator training and ability; and the operating

environment. The agency believes that Standard No. 500, in combination

with a limited operating environment and appropriate operator training

and ability, will appropriately address the safety needs of LSV users.

With respect to the LSV itself, the safety goal is that the vehicle

have crash avoidance and crash protection characteristics appropriate

for its speed and size, and its operating environment. Seat belts will

afford protection against ejection. In the mixed motoring environment

that will result when LSVs are introduced, crash avoidance will become

all the more important. The small LSV must be easily detectable by

drivers of larger vehicles. The requirements for lamps and reflectors

should enhance the conspicuity of LSVs. Further, the LSV must have

sufficient capability to move out of the way of faster traffic. LSVs

designed to travel at speeds approaching 25 miles per hour will give

them greater ability than fleet and personal golf cars to maneuver in

and out of on-road situations that threaten them, e.g., when passing

through an intersection after stopping at a stop sign or when turning

left across lanes for oncoming traffic.

With respect to the operator, the safety goal is that the driver be

familiar with the operating characteristics of the LSV so that he or

she may drive appropriately to minimize the possibility of rollover, or

hitting a pedestrian or other vehicle. States can contribute to driver

safety by requiring LSV operators to be licensed.

The driving environment should be appropriate to the vehicle and

its characteristics. Limitation of LSV use to low-speed city and

suburban streets is necessary, but not eliminate the safety risks. In

this regard, the agency notes that there have been four fatalities in

golf car crashes in Sun City, Arizona. Conversely, none have occurred

in the City of Palm Desert.

There are a number of possible reasons for the reported different

safety records of these two cities. A very large difference in the

number of golf cars used on-road may be one reason. Approximately 6,000

golf cars are driven on the roads of Sun City, while the number of golf

cars registered for on-road use in City of Palm Desert is only

approximately 250. Also, neither Arizona nor Sun City requires all of

the safety equipment (e.g., seat belts) that the City of Palm Desert

requires.

Still another reason may lie in the different operating

environments in the two communities. The City of Palm Desert has a more

controlled environment than Sun City for golf car use. The City of Palm

Desert permits 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.

4. The Agency Has Appropriately Considered the Experience of Foreign

Small Vehicles

In the NPRM, the agency noted that small, but generally higher

speed passenger vehicles were being marketed in Japan (``kei'' cars)

and France (Voiture Sans Permis (VSP) and Tricycles et Quadricycles a

Moteur (TQM)). Within the limits of its knowledge at the time of the

NPRM, the agency described the physical attributes of these vehicles

and some of the operating limitations.

Advocates responded to this discussion in the NPRM by arguing that

the agency had not adequately considered these foreign experiences with

small vehicles. Since the NPRM, the agency has obtained additional

information regarding both kei cars and the French voiturettes. The

limits on length, width and engine displacement of kei cars have been

steadily eased over the last 20 years. Limit on engine displacement has

increased from less than 360 cc prior to 1976, to less than 550 cc in

1976, to less than 660 cc in 1990. Length limits have increased

slightly, from approximately 3.2 m in 1976, to 3.3 m in 1990 to 3.4 m

in October 1998. Width limits have slightly increased from less than

1.4 in 1976 to less than 1.48 in October 1998.

NHTSA is also aware that the safety requirements for kei cars have

been steadily increased in the 1990's. Beginning in 1994, frontal crash

protection requirements had to be met by kei cars at 40 km/hr and by

passenger cars at 50 km/hr. Those requirements are a HIC not greater

than 1000, thorax acceleration not greater than 60g and femur load not

greater than 10kn. The test speed for the frontal crash protection

requirements will become the same (50 km/hr) for kei cars and passenger

cars in October of this year, when the most recent increases in kei car

length and width become effective.

As for the two classes of voiturettes in Europe, the agency has

learned that the European Union (EU) issued a directive last year

harmonizing laws in EU for mopeds, auto-cycles, motorcycles and

motorized tricycles and quadricycles (``voiturettes'') with respect to

tires, lighting, signaling, mirrors, fuel tanks, seat belts, and belt

anchorages, washers, wipers, and demisters. Under the directive, a

voiturette approved in one European country is automatically marketable

in all 14 other member states.

The critical point, however, concerning the Japanese kei cars and

the faster class of voiturettes is that they are not similar to LSVs

and their experiences are not directly relevant. Their operating

characteristics and environment are so different from those of LSVs

that the experiences of those foreign cars are not predictive of the

experiences of LSVs. The kei cars and TQM voiturettes can travel at

approximately twice the speed of LSVs and have a much longer operating

range. Further, their operating environment is not nearly so restricted

by law as that of LSVs.

C. Safety Engineering Issues

There were a number of issues involving scope of the standard and

the equipment that would be required.

1. Speed Range of Motor Vehicles Subject to This Standard.

a. Minimum Threshold of 20 Miles Per Hour. The NPRM proposed to

regulate golf cars with a top speed range of 15 to 25 miles per hour,

and other 4-wheeled motor vehicles, other than vehicles with work-

performing equipment, with a top speed of up to 25 miles per

hour.23 The final rule applies to a smaller group of

vehicles, i.e., 4-wheeled motor vehicles, other than

[[Page 33209]]

trucks, with a top speed of 20 to 25 miles per hour.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ Motorcycles are already subject to a variety of FMVSSs.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In issuing the NPRM, NHTSA did not intend to regulate conventional

golf cars. To carry out that intent, the agency proposed to include

only those vehicles whose maximum speed exceeded 15 miles per hour.

That speed was selected on the basis of information indicating that

fleet and personal golf cars had a maximum speed of 15 miles per hour.

As noted above, standard Z130.1, the industry standard for golf cars to

be ``used solely on golf courses'' (paragraph 1.1), contains a

specification for ``Maximum vehicle speed'' (paragraph 9.6.1). That

specification states that when a golf car is operated on a straight

track at maximum speed, once in either direction, the ``(t)he average

speed [of the two runs] shall not exceed 15 mi/h (24 km/h)'' (paragraph

9.6.1.3). Accordingly, the agency tentatively concluded that if a golf

car had a top speed greater than 15 miles per hour, that capability

evidenced an intent that the golf car be operated on the road as well

as on golf courses. Further, NGCMA stated at the July 25, 1996 public

meeting that ``100 percent'' of the golf car manufacturers adhered to

the standard. This statement led the agency to believe that virtually

all fleet and personal golf cars met the industry standard.

The submissions by the golf car industry after the NPRM contained

significant new information. While the pre-NPRM information represented

the annual fleet of new golf cars as an essentially homogeneous,

undifferentiated collection of vehicles, the post-NPRM information drew

distinctions between a variety of subgroups within the new golf car

fleet. One distinction was made between fleet golf cars and personal

golf cars. Another and more important distinction was made between the

vast majority of golf cars that have a top speed of about 12 miles per

hour versus the much more limited, but not insignificant number of golf

cars that have a top speed of 15-20 miles per hour.24

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ In submissions made after the NPRM, NGCMA stated that sales

of new golf cars are divided into two categories; ``fleet golf

cars'' and ``personal golf cars.'' Fleet golf cars are sold directly

to golf courses. They comprise approximately 89 percent of sales. In

an April 16, 1998 letter, NGCMA estimated that fleet golf cars have

a maximum speed of approximately 12 miles per hour or less. Personal

golf cars are sold to individuals, and comprise approximately 11

percent of sales.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In its February 1997 comment on the NPRM, Club Car, the second

largest member of NGCMA, confirmed that it produces personal golf cars

whose top speed is between 15 and 20 miles per hour. It did not

specify, however, the percentage of its personal golf cars with that

top speed. Further, Club Car gave no indication in that comment that it

produced any fleet golf cars with such a top speed. However, in

response to this agency's May 1998 inquiry about the percentage of

fleet and personal golf cars with a top speed above 15 miles per hour

produced by each of the major NGCMA members, NGCMA stated in a

telephone conversation on June 3 that 1 percent of Club Car's fleet

golf cars, and 75 percent of its personal golf cars, have a top speed

between 15 and 20 miles per hour. None of the other large members

produce any golf cars with such a top speed. Prior to that

conversation, NGCMA had not explicitly stated that any of its members

currently produce golf cars exceeding 15 miles per hour. However, NGCMA

did suggest in its post-NPRM submissions that personal golf cars be

defined as having a top speed between 15 and 20 miles per hour and

explicitly stated that none of its members are now manufacturing

personal golf cars capable of exceeding 20 miles per hour.

In light of this new information and on further consideration, the

agency has decided to limit the application of Standard No. 500 to

vehicles whose top speed is between 20 and 25 miles per hour. This

decision carries out the agency's original intent of excluding

virtually all conventional golf cars from the standard.

The agency believes that 20 miles per hour is a better dividing

line between vehicles designed for use on the golf course and vehicles

designed for on-road use. The conventional golf cars whose top speed is

between 15 and 20 miles per hour have a body and understructure ver

similar to that of conventional golf cars whose top speed is less than

15 miles per hour. Further, while the speed differential between those

two groups of golf cars creates a significant difference in their

potential crash energy, the energy in the 15 to 20 mile-per-hour range

is still modest compared to that of LSVs. As noted above, golf cars

with a top speed of less than 15 miles per hour reportedly have a top

speed of about 12 miles per hour. Those golf cars with a top speed

between 15 and 20 miles per hour are believed by the agency to have a

top speed of approximately 17 to 18 miles per hour.

The practical safety effects of raising the speed threshold does

not appear to be extensive. Data obtained since the NPRM regarding the

limited number of fatalities associated with on-road use of fleet and

personal golf cars indicate that the state and local governments are

adequately providing for the safety of on-road users of those golf

cars. The agency recognizes that the limited number may partially

reflect the currently limited extent of general on-road use of golf

cars. However, NHTSA believes that it also reflects the efforts being

made by state and local governments to regulate the safety of the on-

road use of golf cars. Even as the number of golf cars used on-road

increases, there will be less reason for safety concern about vehicles

whose maximum speed is 15 to 20 miles per hour than about vehicles

whose maximum speed is 20 to 25 miles per hour. This is because, as

also noted above, the potential crash energy of a vehicle traveling 20

to 25 miles per hour is significantly greater than one traveling at

less than 20 miles per hour.

By excluding fleet and personal golf cars from the standard's

applicability, NHTSA emphasizes that it has not decided or implied that

these vehicles should not be subject to any safety regulation by state

or local authorities. Moreover, since the agency is not treating those

vehicles as motor vehicles, its standard setting activities cannot pre-

empt any such state or local regulation. State and local jurisdictions

may continue to adopt such safety equipment requirements as they deem

appropriate for vehicles, including golf cars, with a maximum speed of

20 miles per hour or less.

b. Upper Limit of 25 Miles Per Hour. NHTSA notes Advocates'

apprehension that there might be a future increase in the upper speed

threshold for low-speed vehicles. This issue was discussed in the City

of Palm Desert meeting (see text of Transcript, beginning at p. 17).

There was no sentiment for increasing the permissible speed for on-road

golf cars beyond 25 miles per hour. Further, while the agency cannot

predict the future, it does not contemplate the possibility that future

circumstances might justify increasing the upper threshold for LSVs.

Even if it did occur, the changed circumstances would cause the agency

to examine significantly narrowing the differences between the safety

requirements for LSVs and passenger cars.25 In this regard,

as NHTSA has already noted above, the steady increase in Japanese kei

car size and engine displacement has resulted, effective in October of

this year, in the elimination of any difference between the frontal

crash protection safety requirements for kei cars and those for

passenger cars. Finally, the agency notes

[[Page 33210]]

that it would not be appropriate for it to issue this final rule just

because of the possibility that there may be future requests for the

agency to take additional actions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ NHTSA notes that in the 30 years since the creation of the

motor-driven cycle subclass, there has not been any increase in the

level of horsepower that divides those vehicles from other

motorcycles.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA is aware that a state legislature could define NEVs as

vehicles capable of speeds in excess of 25 miles per hour. The agency

emphasizes that the enactment of such definition would have no impact

upon the Federal definition of LSV, or on the applicability of Standard

No. 500. Any NEV or other small passenger vehicle whose maximum speed

is higher than 25 miles per hour would not qualify as an LSV.

Accordingly, it would have to comply with the full range of Federal

motor vehicle safety standards applicable to its type. As noted above,

such a vehicle would most likely be classified as a passenger car, and

be subject to the full range of FMVSSs for passenger cars.

2. Seat belts

The proposed requirement for seat belts is supported by the two

known manufacturers of NEVs, both of which advertise their vehicles as

being equipped with seat belts, and is not opposed by dealers who

produce speed-modified golf cars with a top speed greater than 20 miles

per hour.

Based primarily on the fact that the proposal would have applied to

those golf cars capable, as originally manufactured, of exceeding 15

miles per hour, golf car manufacturers and dealers initially

strenuously opposed requiring seat belts. According to NGCMA:

such a requirement in a golf car as presently manufactured is not

necessarily going to provide increased safety to occupants but may

enhance the risk of injury or even death if the occupant is

restrained in the vehicle by a seat belt assembly upon rollover.

Engineering consensus is seat belts on golf cars are inappropriate

as is the case with motorcycles, ATVs, snowmobiles and personal

watercrafts. An optional passenger roof may be affixed to a golf car

for weather protection, but the roofs so installed do not comply

with standard ROPS [rollover protection system] criteria.

Golf cars are equipped with a standard hip or hand hold

restraint located towards the outside of the seat. However, the hand

hold does not prevent the occupant from jumping or leaping out of

the golf car to avoid further injury if the golf car is about to

roll over. For this reason, NGCMA submits that in lieu of a seat

belt requirement for golf cars, a hand hold or hip restraint should

be required as set forth in ANSI/NGCMA Z130.1

In its February 21, 1997 comments on the NPRM, NGCMA sought a delay

in the implementation of the proposed standard to give the industry

time to study ``occupant dynamics and a review of seat belt design and

seat belt mounting and attachment methods.'' It estimated that a

minimum of 24 to 36 months would be needed for that purpose.

In its December 22, 1997 submission to the docket, NGCMA clarified

its previous statements and indicated that the industry does not

manufacture golf cars that exceed 20 miles per hour, and asked that

golf cars incapable of exceeding that speed not be required to be

equipped with seat belts. Subsequently, over 30 dealers and

distributors informed NHTSA that if the agency limited the seat belt

requirement as requested by NGCMA in its December 1997 letter, they

would not oppose the issuance of an LSV final rule. (March 20, 1998

letter from Eileen Bradner, Counsel to Club Car, Inc.) Given that this

final rule does not apply to the golf cars that concerned the industry

and its dealers, i.e., golf cars incapable of exceeding 20 miles per

hour, the golf car industry's concerns about seat belts and golf cars

have been resolved.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to address the safety value of

requiring seat belts in speed-modified and custom golf cars whose speed

capability exceeds 20 miles per hour, thus qualifying them as LSVs. WLF

argued that the use of seat belts by golf car users would lead to

decreased, instead of increased, safety.

Seat belts reduce occupant ejection from all types of vehicles.

They are highly effective in preventing occupants of open vehicles from

falling out during abrupt maneuvers and in preventing or reducing

ejection from both closed and open body vehicles in crashes. This is

important for safety since ejection onto hard road surfaces in traffic

substantially increases the likelihood of death or serious injury.

Support for seat belts in golf cars has been expressed in Sun City,

Arizona, the scene of four golf car crash fatalities between 1995 and

early 1998, and in nearby Sun City West. In 1996, the Sun City West

Property Owners-Resident Association and Sun City Homeowners

Association reportedly responded to a perceived increase in the number

of golf car crashes by asking local golf car dealers and distributors

to install seat belts in all golf cars used on public roads. (The

Arizona Republic/The Phoenix Gazette, July 15, 1996).26 More

recently, in a March 12, 1998 Associated Press story, Detective Jeffrey

Childs of the Maricopa County (Arizona) Sheriff's Department was

reported as saying that use of seat belts in golf cars would prevent

injuries and deaths. Maricopa County includes Sun City, which, as noted

above, was the site of four golf car crash fatalities between 1995 and

the date of that story. Detective Childs reportedly stated his belief

that the last person killed in a Sun City golf car crash, a woman

thrown from her golf car when it was struck by a passenger car, would

have survived had she been wearing a seat belt. He also noted more

generally, ``(w)e've had incidents where they'll take a corner too fast

and get pitched out * * *. At that age, that'll kill them.''

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ In a May 27, 1998 telephone conversation with an agency

official, Mr. Paul Schwartz, Chairman of the Transportation

Committee, Sun City Homeowners Association, Inc., said his

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

telephone conversation, Mr. Noel Willis, President of the Sun City

West Property Owners-Residents Association, said his association has

no position on seat belts in golf cars.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further, seat belt installation continues to have support in the

City of Palm Desert. The agency notes that although California

eliminated its requirement that local golf car transportation plans

include a requirement for seats belts, the City of Palm Desert has

retained its seat belt requirement.

The agency concludes that the primary value of seat belt use in

LSVs will be in reducing the frequency and severity of injuries in non-

rollover crashes of LSVs by preventing occupant ejection. NHTSA

estimates that 12-13 percent of the fatalities and injuries in on-road

crashes of golf cars involved ejection of the golf car occupants. The

importance of preventing ejection may also be seen from examining FARS

data. Although those data relate to vehicles with higher speed

capability and, in most instances, with enclosed occupant compartments,

they are nevertheless instructive. Those data show that the likelihood

of a vehicle occupant's being killed if ejected is 4 times greater than

the likelihood of being killed if the occupant remains within the

vehicle. Seat belts are 99 percent effective at preventing full

ejection and 86 percent effective at preventing partial ejection. Even

if these compelling data are discounted to reflect differences in the

vehicle populations being compared, they still lead the agency to

determine that seat belts will enhance the safety of LSV occupants in

non-rollover crashes.

In on-road rollover crashes, the LSV occupants are likely to be

injured, perhaps seriously, regardless of whether they are belted or

unbelted. The agency does not believe that the frequency or severity of

on-road rollover injuries will increase if LSV occupants use seat

belts.

The conjectures by some commenters that it would be valuable to be

able to jump out of an LSV are unsubstantiated speculation that is

especially

[[Page 33211]]

unpersuasive given the volume of data showing that ejection is

extremely dangerous and that seat belts are remarkably effective at

preventing ejection. NHTSA notes that there may be less opportunity

for, and less potential benefit from, attempting to jump out of an

overturning LSV traveling down a road than one being driven on a golf

course. Even if there is sufficient time for some occupants to jump out

of a golf car during a rollover at speeds under 15 miles per hour on a

golf course, there is less likely to be an opportunity to do so during

a rollover at 20 to 25 miles per hour. This seems especially true if an

LSV rolls over on a road as a result of being struck by a larger,

faster moving vehicle. Further, jumping out of an LSV traveling down a

road at speeds up to 25 miles per hour onto the hard surface of that

road in traffic is more likely to cause serious injury than jumping out

of an LSV traveling at a speed of 15 miles per hour or less onto the

surface of a golf course. NHTSA also notes that people using seat belt

equipped golf cars need not wear the seat belts while driving on a golf

course.

Based on these considerations, the agency concludes that it is

desirable to require seat belts in LSVs. The agency notes that States

and local jurisdictions are free to require safety belts on golf cars

whose top speed does not exceed 20 miles per hour.

NHTSA will monitor the safety record of LSVs manufactured in

compliance with Standard No. 500. Although the agency does not expect

that crash data will bear out WLF's concerns, NHTSA, together with

State and local authorities, will respond appropriately if any changes

are needed.

3. Windshields

The golf car industry argued that installation of an AS-1

windshield would require modification of the windshield mounting

brackets, would add weight to the upper area of a golf car, thereby

increasing the likelihood of its rollover, and would be easily

shattered if struck by a golf ball. Accordingly, the industry

recommended allowing a ``shatter resistant polymer'' windshield as a

substitute.

Although NHTSA's reference standard, the City of Palm Desert

requirements, did not specify the type of glazing to be used in a

windshield, NHTSA tentatively decided that safety would be enhanced by

requiring a passenger car-type windshield, i.e., by requiring AS-1

glazing. One basis for this tentative decision was that AS-1 glazing is

not subject to diminution of light transparence through haze and

scratches. However, given the industry's concern in its comments on the

NPRM that golf car safety might be compromised were their windshields

to be cracked by errant golf balls, the agency looked for acceptable

alternatives.

The agency conducted a series of tests on various types of glazing

materials using a projectile to simulate the impact of a golf ball. One

type was AS-1 glazing. The AS-1 glazing effectively stopped a golf ball

from penetration at the fastest velocities at which a golf ball is

likely to travel after being driven off a tee by the average male

golfer. However, the impact caused glass fragments of the reverse side

of the glazing to be flung into the passenger compartment, creating a

possible safety risk for occupants.

Another series of tests was conducted on an AS-6 motorcycle

windshield made of ``Lucite.'' When this acrylic plastic windshield was

impacted at approximately 120-125 miles per hour, it shattered.

Finally, a series of tests were conducted on polycarbonate plastic

glazing at speeds up to 225 miles per hour. No penetration, clouding,

or cracking/shattering occurred.

After reviewing these tests and the ANSI standard, the agency

judged that AS-5 glazing is preferable to AS-6 glazing for use as a

golf car windshield. The specifications for the two types of glazing

are similar except that, unlike the AS-6 specifications, the AS-5

specifications include an additional abrasion test that precludes

acrylic plastic windshields. While AS-4 glazing specifications also

include the additional abrasion test, they do not include the dart drop

test requirement in the AS-5 specifications. The agency decided,

therefore, to change the standard to provide LSV manufacturers with a

choice between AS-1 and AS-5 windshields. NHTSA is retaining AS-1

glazing as an option since some LSVs may not be intended for golf

course use at all. In this regard, the agency notes that the device for

limiting speed to levels appropriate for golf course use is not

standard equipment, but a several hundred dollar option, on the

vehicles of one NEV manufacturer. LSV manufacturers which intend and

equip their vehicles for golf course use as well as on-road use can

choose AS-5 glazing for their windshields.

4. VINs, Horn, and Warning Label

Bombardier (008) and CHP (013) recommended that the new class of

motor vehicle be required to have a Vehicle Identification Number

(VIN), as do other classes of motor vehicles subject to the FMVSSs. In

their opinion, VINs are necessary for state registration and licensing,

and for effective and efficient safety enforcement regulation and

recalls. Further, VINs could prove a useful tool in NHTSA's monitoring

of the record of LSVs.

The agency agrees with these comments and has added a VIN to the

list of required safety features. A VIN is necessary to assure timely

and correct data collection of LSV crashes, and to assure that the data

is electronically searchable. Additionally, because LSVs, as motor

vehicles, will be subject to the statutory notification and remedy

(recall) requirements, equipping LSVs with VINs will also aid in

identifying the vehicle population involved in a given recall and

assuring that owners are notified of safety-related defects and

noncompliances with this standard.

The commenters suggested that Table 1 of Sec. 565.4, 49 CFR, should

also be amended to allow for the use of special characters designating

a vehicle as an LSV. This would avoid any confusion in identifying LSVs

and other vehicles in crash reports. The agency is interested in this

suggestion, and will consider it as a possible candidate for future

rulemaking.

Both commenters also recommended that LSVs be required to be

equipped with a horn. The City of Palm Desert and Roseville, California

require a horn because of the potential safety hazard posed by silent

electric vehicles to other users of the roadway, such as pedestrians

and bicyclists. The CHP stated that the horn should be capable of

emitting a sound audible under normal conditions from a distance of not

less than 200 feet, but that it should not be unreasonably loud or

harsh.

The NPRM did not propose including a horn because there is no

requirement in the FMVSSs that other motor vehicles be equipped with

one. A horn is an equipment item that has been standard equipment on

every motor vehicle since the earliest days of motor vehicles.

Accordingly, there does not appear to be any need to require one for

LSVs. Moreover, local jurisdictions, such as the City of Palm Desert,

may adopt their own requirements for a horn, including requirements

regulating its performance.

NHTSA also proposed that LSVs be equipped with a permanently

affixed label warning the driver against operating the vehicle at

speeds over 25 miles per hour. As stated in the NPRM, the purpose of

the label was to ensure that the driver of an LSV modified so that its

top speed exceeds 25 mph would have a permanent reminder that the

vehicle was not designed to be operated at speeds greater than 25 mph.

[[Page 33212]]

The agency has decided not to adopt this proposal. The underlying

problem is addressed by the prohibition in the Vehicle Safety Act

against commercial entities making inoperative any safety feature

required by the FMVSSs, including the feature(s) limiting an LSV's top

speed to not more than 25 miles per hour. Further, if a person decided

to purchase a speed-modified LSV, notwithstanding the presence of the

label, having a permanent reminder is unlikely to dissuade the owner

from operating that vehicle in excess of 25 miles per hour.

5. Other Areas of Safety Performance; Future Considerations

NHTSA will monitor the safety record of LSVs as the use of those

vehicles increases. The agency will also consider whether Standard No.

500 meets the anticipated safety needs of LSV users.

As the agency noted above, crash avoidance considerations make it

important that small vehicles be readily detectable by other drivers in

the traffic stream. Although LSVs are expected to be somewhat larger

than other small vehicles sharing the roadways with them, e.g.,

motorcycles and bicycles, it is difficult to ensure that drivers of

larger vehicles are aware of smaller vehicles that may be sharing the

roadway. Smaller vehicles can more easily get lost in the rearview

blind spots, or be obscured by an A-pillar when turning in front of

larger vehicles from the opposite direction. To offset this problem,

motorcycles are manufactured today so that their headlamps are on (or

on and modulating) when the ignition is on during daytime operation as

a means of enhancing the conspicuity of cyclists, who are also advised

to wear bright colored clothing.

NHTSA intends to examine the Federal lighting requirements

presently applicable to motor driven cycles to judge their

appropriateness and feasibility for LSVs, and to consider whether any

of the LSV lighting equipment should be required to meet performance

specifications such as those of the SAE or those currently included in

Standard No. 108. The agency will also consider the suggestions of some

commenters. TSEI (018), CHP (028), Brownell (035), Ziolo (040), and SMV

Technologies (068) were concerned that, if lighting equipment were not

required to comply with minimum Federal regulations for signals and

visibility as well as physical endurance requirements, the danger of

crashes will increase.

A further issue is whether the drivers of vehicles approaching LSVs

from behind can detect them in a timely fashion. TSEI also asked for

identification of LSVs with a conspicuity device that would make it

clear that these vehicles are operating at lower speeds. Ziolo

suggested that they be equipped with a high-intensity flashing yellow

lamp on the rear or on the top. SMV Technologies recommended a

retroreflective orange triangle to be applied front and rear. NHTSA

will examine these suggestions. For the present, in consideration of

these comments, it has added a rear reflex reflector to Standard No.

500's required lighting equipment.

NHTSA will also further examine braking performance issues as part

of its crash-avoidance standards review.

The agency is also interested in considering further the

appropriateness of applying other small-vehicle standards to LSVs,

particularly with reference to occupant protection in crashes and

safety from propulsion systems after crashes. The first of these

standards is the golf car industry standard, Z130.1. Although this

standard is predicated on a vehicle maximum speed of 15 miles per hour,

the standard contains tests and procedures that warrant examination

with respect to vehicles with a maximum speed of 20 to 25 miles per

hour. For example, requirements are specified for static stability in

both longitudinal and lateral test attitudes (9.6.3) and service and

parking brake performance (9.6.4). Service brake performance tests are

conducted on a horizontal flat surface at maximum vehicle speed.

Specifications are also specified for battery installation (9.7) whose

impact containment is demonstrated under a dynamic test in which a golf

car is propelled at maximum speed into a concrete or steel barrier in

both forward and reverse directions. Golf cars are also subject to

specifications for wiring systems (paragraph 10.1, for electric-powered

vehicles; paragraph 11.1, for gasoline-powered vehicles) and heat-

generating components (paragraph 10.2, for electric golf cars;

paragraph 11.2 for others). Gasoline-powered golf cars are also subject

to specifications for fuel systems (paragraph 11.3) whose impact

containment is demonstrated in frontal and reverse barrier tests at

maximum speed. These latter include containment in a roll-over

situation.

NHTSA will also follow the ongoing SAE efforts to develop a

standard applicable to ``closed community vehicles.'' It is anticipated

that this standard will address rollover characteristics of small

vehicles with relatively high centers of gravity, and the concomitant

risk of leaking of fuel or caustic fluids into the passenger

compartment in the event of a rollover.

Finally, the agency intends to examine the appropriateness of

specifying strength requirements for seat belt anchorages in LSVs.

D. Compliance with other Statutory Requirements Relating to Safety and

with Federal Statutes Regulating Non-Safety Aspects of Motor Vehicles

1. Other Statutory Requirements Relating to Safety

This rulemaking places NEVs and golf cars capable of exceeding 20

miles per hour in a new class of ``motor vehicles,'' and excludes them

from the FMVSSs that they would otherwise have to meet. Notwithstanding

their classification as LSVs, instead of passenger cars, these NEVs and

golf cars remain subject to other safety statutes and regulations

implementing Chapter 301 that establish obligations for manufacturers

of ``motor vehicles,'' such as the requirement to file an

identification statement under Part 566, Manufacturer Identification;

to certify vehicles pursuant to Part 567, Certification; to provide

notification and remedy of safety-related defects and noncompliances

(49 U.S.C. Secs. 30118-30120; Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance

Reports; and Part 577, Defect and Noncompliance Notification); to

retain records (Part 576, Record Retention); and to provide consumer

information (Part 575, Consumer Information Regulations). However,

since LSVs are excluded from the requirement of Standard No. 110 that

they be equipped with tires complying with Standard No. 109, NHTSA

regards Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, as

inapplicable to manufacturers of LSVs, notwithstanding that LSVs are

``motor vehicles.''

2. Federal Statutes Regulating Non-Safety Aspects of Motor Vehicles

NHTSA's vehicle safety program is but one of a number of Federal

regulatory programs affecting motor vehicles. Others include NHTSA's

fuel economy, theft, property damage reduction (bumpers), and domestic

content labeling programs, and the Environmental Protection Agency's

emissions program. Having been able to use the discretion granted the

agency by the Vehicle Safety Act to tailor the FMVSS to the particular

safety problems and compliance capabilities of low-speed vehicles,

NHTSA has considered whether the Congressional statutes regulating

various non-safety aspects of motor vehicles give the agency similar

[[Page 33213]]

discretion to determine whether and to what extent low-speed vehicles

should comply with the requirements of those statutes.

a. Theft. NHTSA issued Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft

Prevention Standard, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Chapter 331, Theft

Prevention. The purpose of the standard is to reduce the incidence of

passenger motor vehicle thefts by facilitating the tracing and recovery

of parts from stolen vehicles. The standard seeks to facilitate such

tracing by requiring marking of major component parts of higher theft

vehicle lines.

While LSVs subject to Standard No. 500 would be passenger motor

vehicles under Chapter 331, NHTSA believes there would not, for the

immediate future, be any reliable way of evaluating their likely theft

rates. This is because LSVs do not currently exist as a vehicle class,

and they are sufficiently different from other classes of vehicles to

make comparisons related to theft unreliable. Thus, it could not be

determined whether their rates were high enough to subject them to

parts marking.

Given that application of the Theft Prevention Standard is

necessarily dependent on making determinations concerning theft rates,

the agency has decided not to apply the standard to LSVs until there is

sufficient information to make such determinations. Once sufficient

information becomes available, NHTSA will revisit this issue.

b. Content Labeling. The American Automobile Labeling Act (AALA),

codified at 49 U.S.C. Sec. 32304, requires passenger motor vehicles to

be labeled with information about their domestic and foreign content.

More specifically, the Act generally requires each new passenger motor

vehicle to be labeled with the following five items of information: (1)

U.S./Canadian parts content, (2) major sources of foreign parts

content, (3) the final assembly point by city, state (where

appropriate), and country; (4) the country of origin of the engine

parts, and (5) the country of origin of the transmission parts. The Act

specifies that the first two items of information, the U.S./Canadian

parts content and major sources of foreign parts content, are

calculated on a ``carline'' basis rather than for each individual

vehicle. NHTSA's regulations implementing the AALA are set forth in

Part 583, Automobile Parts Content Labeling.

NHTSA notes that the LSVs subject to Standard No. 500 come within

the definition of ``passenger motor vehicle'' under the AALA.

Therefore, manufacturers of LSVs are necessarily subject to the

requirements of Part 583, subject to certain important limitations

discussed below.

A manufacturer that produces LSVs from various parts at a final

assembly point is subject to Part 583 in the same manner as

manufacturers of passenger cars and light trucks. The manufacturer is

required to affix the required label containing content information to

all new LSVs.\27\ The manufacturer must calculate the information for

the label by using information provided to it by suppliers. Under Part

583, the manufacturer is required to request its suppliers to provide

the relevant content information specified in Part 583, and the

suppliers are required to provide the specified information in response

to such requests. The agency notes that it recently issued a letter of

interpretation (dated March 5, 1998, and addressed to Erika Z. Jones,

Esq.) concerning how Part 583 applies to electric vehicles. This letter

is available on NHTSA's website.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ A manufacturer that produces a total of fewer than 1000

passenger motor vehicles in a model year is subject to more limited

labeling requirements. See 49 CFR Sec. 583.5(g).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The agency has concluded that Part 583 does not, however, apply to

dealers and entities that modify golf cars so that their top speed is

increased so that it is between 20 and 25 mph. This conclusion is based

on the overall structure of the AALA. The agency notes that it

considered a similar issue in promulgating Part 583. NHTSA decided that

alterers are not covered by the Act. The agency explained: ``Alterers

modify completed vehicles, after they have left the manufacturer's

final assembly point. The parts they use are not considered equipment

by [the AALA], because they are never shipped to the final assembly

point.'' 59 FR 37321; July 21, 1994. The agency notes that while the

golf cars these dealers and other entities would be modifying are not

considered motor vehicles prior to the modification, they are

nonetheless completed vehicles after they have left the final assembly

point. Therefore, NHTSA believes it is appropriate to apply the same

result as it reached for alterers.

c. Corporate Average Fuel Economy. NHTSA observes that LSVs are

expected to have very high fuel economy because of their small size.

Accordingly, a fleet consisting solely of LSVs should not have any

difficulty meeting the corporate average fuel economy standards

applicable to passenger motor vehicles and light trucks pursuant to 49

U.S.C. Chapter 329, Automobile Fuel Economy. The standards are set

forth at 49 CFR Parts 531 and 533. The agency notes that while it has

the responsibility for setting fuel economy standards, the procedures

for measuring and calculating fuel economy are established by EPA. See

49 U.S.C. 32904.

NHTSA enforces the fuel economy standards based on information

developed by EPA under those procedures. However, the present EPA test

procedure specifies that test vehicles must operate during testing at

speeds that are above the capability of LSVs. Accordingly, the

procedure cannot be used to measure the fuel economy of these vehicles.

NHTSA will not enforce fuel economy standards, or regulations

related to those standards (e.g., reporting requirements) for any

vehicles for which EPA does not have procedures for measuring and

calculating fuel economy. Manufacturers of LSVs, including modifiers of

golf cars, should contact EPA concerning their emissions

responsibilities and concerning any changes in that agency's procedures

for measuring and calculating fuel economy.

d. Bumper Standards. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 325, Bumper Standards,

NHTSA is required to issue bumper standards for passenger motor

vehicles. The purpose of that chapter is to reduce economic loss

resulting from damage to passenger motor vehicles involved in motor

vehicle crashes. Under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 32502(c), the agency may, for

good cause, exempt from any part of a standard a multipurpose passenger

vehicle or a make, model, or class of a passenger motor vehicle

manufactured for a special use, if the standard would interfere

unreasonably with the special use of the vehicle.

NHTSA's regulations implementing Chapter 325 are set forth in Part

581, Bumper Standard. The standard applies to passenger motor vehicles

other than multipurpose passenger vehicles. The agency has not applied

Part 581 to multipurpose passenger vehicles because of concerns that

the standard could interfere with the use of these vehicles,

particularly with respect to off-road operation.

In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed to conclude that LSVs are not passenger

motor vehicles within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 325, and that

the bumper standard is therefore not applicable to LSVs. On further

consideration, the agency has decided that it cannot make that

conclusion consistent with Chapter 325. However, NHTSA has concluded

that the special use rationale for not applying the Bumper Standard to

multipurpose passenger vehicles also applies to LSVs subject to

Standard No. 500. Many of these vehicles are golf cars

[[Page 33214]]

or are largely derived from golf cars. All or most are currently

intended for both on-road and off-road use. Application of the Bumper

Standard to these vehicles could interfere with off-road operation,

e.g., the need of these vehicles to negotiate the uneven terrain of a

golf course. Therefore, the agency finds good cause for exempting them

from part 581.

V. Effective Date.

The agency has decided to make its vehicle classification changes

and new Standard No. 500 effective upon the publication of this final

rule in the Federal Register. These actions relieve a restriction on

the manufacturers of LSVs. They do so by bringing an immediate end to

the regulatory conflict between State and local laws on the one hand

and Federal laws on the other, and replacing the current impracticable

and overly extensive set of Federal requirements with a set that is

more appropriate and reasonable for this new, emerging class of

vehicles. NEV manufacturers and modifiers of golf cars wish to have the

opportunity to begin the manufacture and sale of vehicles complying

with the new standard as soon as possible.

The golf car industry's initial 36-month lead time request was

based upon the proposed lower threshold of 15 miles per hour, the

industry's opposition to seat belts and its wish to develop and

implement an integrated rollover protection system that might require

modifications to its existing vehicle designs. In its December 22, 1997

letter, NGCMA shortened the requested lead time to 6 to 12 months,

provided that seat belts were not required for their golf cars as

originally manufactured. This request, like the first, was based on the

proposed 15-mile-per-hour threshold. As noted above, the lower

threshold has been raised to 20 miles per hour in this final rule, thus

excluding golf cars as they are now originally manufactured, and

resolving the lead time concerns of the golf car manufacturers.

Bombardier indicated that its NEV is equipped to comply with the

new standard, as proposed, and that it needed no lead time. Information

in the VRTC study indicates that the Global Electric MotorCars' NEV

complies, except for red reflex reflectors and mirrors which can be

readily added.

The remaining lead time issue concerns those golf car dealers who,

on or after the effective date of the final rule, modify the maximum

speed capability of golf cars so that it is between 20 and 25 miles per

hour. The salient fact is that this rulemaking eliminates existing

unnecessary restrictions on those modifications. Prior to the effective

date, those speed modifica

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.