Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Low-Speed Vehicles, 20026-20029 [06-3590]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 19, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20026-20029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-3590]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-06-24488]
RIN 2127-AJ85


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Low-Speed Vehicles

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the definition of ``low-speed vehicle'' 
(LSV) by increasing the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) limit for 
the class of LSVs to those vehicles with a GVWR of less than 1,361 
kilograms (3,000 pounds).

DATES: Effective Date: This rule becomes effective June 5, 2006.
    Petitions: If you wish to submit a petition for reconsideration of 
this rule, your petition must be received by June 5, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket 
number above and be submitted to: Administrator, Room 5220, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The following persons at the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590.
    For legal issues: Christopher M. Calamita, Office of the Chief 
Counsel (Telephone: 202-366-2992) (Fax: 202-366-3820).
    For other issues: Ms. Gayle Dalrymple, Office of Crash Avoidance 
Standards, NVS-123 (Telephone: 202-366-5559) (Fax: 202-493-2739).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
III. Today's Final Rule in Response to Petitions for Reconsideration
IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

I. Background

    On June 17, 1998, the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule establishing a new 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 500, ``Low-speed 
vehicles,'' and added a definition of ``low-speed vehicle'' (LSV) to 49 
CFR 571.3 (63 FR 33194). This new FMVSS and vehicle class definition 
responded to the growing public interest in using golf cars and other 
similarly sized small vehicles to make short trips for shopping, 
social, and recreational purposes primarily within retirement or other 
planned, self-contained communities. These vehicles, many of which are 
electric-powered, offer comparatively low-cost, energy-efficient, low-
emission, quiet transportation.\1\ The definition of LSV established by 
that rulemaking was, ``a 4-wheeled motor vehicle, other than a truck, 
whose speed attainable in 1.6 km (1 mile) is more than 32 kilometers 
per hour (20 miles per hour) and not more than 40 kilometers per hour 
(25 miles per hour) on a paved level surface.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Electric LSVs are commonly referred to as Neighborhood 
Electric Vehicles (NEVs). However, NEVs are not specifically defined 
in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on December 8, 
2003 (68 FR 68319), we granted the petitions by Global Electric 
Motorcars (GEM) and Solectria, and tentatively agreed with the 
petitioners that the then-current exclusion of trucks from the LSV 
definition was too broad and did not fully reflect current 
interpretations of that definition.\2\ In the NPRM, we proposed to drop 
the exclusion of trucks from the definition, but limit the class to 
small vehicles by limiting the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) to 
less than 1,134 kilograms (2,500-pounds) and requiring a rated cargo 
load of at least 36 kilograms (80 pounds). On August 17, 2005 (70 FR 
48313) we published a final rule dropping the truck restriction from 
the LSV class, but limiting the class to vehicles with less than 2,500-
pounds GVWR. In the preamble to the final rule, we explained the 
rationale for adopting this definition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Docket No. NHTSA-03-16601.

    By removing the truck exclusion we recognize that the LSV 
requirements are applicable to some vehicles designed for more work-
related operation. Manufacturers and the public are provided the 
advantages of LSVs that may be designed primarily to carry cargo. By 
limiting the GVWR, vehicles for which the LSV requirements are not 
appropriate are excluded from the LSV definition, i.e., vehicles 
designed for use outside of planned communities or that could be 
designed to meet the FMVSS requirements for cars, trucks, and multi-
purpose vehicles.
    The GVWR limit prevents attempts to circumvent FMVSSs for cars, 
trucks, and multi-purpose passenger vehicles by applying the LSV 
classification to vehicle types that are able to meet the standards. 
Defining a LSV as having a maximum GVWR of less than 2,500 pounds 
also provides an objective means for delineating between the

[[Page 20027]]

vehicles for which the LSV requirements are appropriate and those 
vehicles that can be designed to meet the full set of FMVSSs. This 
approach will also ensure that heavier, slow moving trucks (i.e., 
street sweepers) continue to be excluded from the LSV definition.

The final rule did not include the rated cargo load requirement 
proposed in the NPRM. The new definition became effective October 3, 
2005 and it reads:

    Low-speed vehicle (LSV) means a motor vehicle,
    (1) that is 4-wheeled,
    (2) whose speed attainable in 1.6 km (1 mile) is more than 32 
kilometers per hour (20 miles per hour) and not more than 40 
kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) on a paved level surface, 
and
    (3) whose GVWR is less than 1,134 kilograms (2,500 pounds).

II. Petitions for Reconsideration

    In October of 2005, NHTSA received two petitions for 
reconsideration of the final rule published in August. The petitioners 
were Dynasty Electric Car Corporation and GEM. Both petitioners took 
issue with the 2,500-pound GVWR limit in the new definition.
    Dynasty Electric Car Corporation explained that it is a 
manufacturer and distributor of fully electric LSVs, including a 
utility-cargo bed model, an open model, a sedan and a van. It believes 
that for an electric LSV to compete with an internal combustion LSV on 
the basis of payload capacity as a utility vehicle and also meet the 
2,500-pound GVWR restriction it ``* * * would be forced to re-evaluate 
the design of our vehicle I.E. chassis and running gear to see where we 
can lighten the vehicle. Not only will this prove costly to us in terms 
of redesign and production delay but could quite possibly have the 
opposite effect of that desired by NHTSA--increased safety for the end 
user.'' Dynasty Electric Car Corporation proposed a 2,500-pound GVWR 
restriction for internal combustion engine LSVs and a 2,800-pound GVWR 
restriction for electric LSVs. It believes this would level the playing 
field between the two types of LSV and allow for the development of 
emerging technologies, such as solar and hydrogen drives.
    In its petition GEM noted that it agrees that GVWR is an 
appropriate method to limit the LSV class, but the limit should not be 
``arbitrarily low''. ``This is especially so in the case of LSV trucks, 
where payload in [sic] critical to the utility of the vehicle.'' GEM 
believes that the 2,500-pound limit is insufficient for LSV trucks to 
serve their intended purpose, and gives as an example:

* * * assuming that LSVs were limited to operation within planned 
communities (such as time share resorts or retirement communities), 
there is adequate demand for using LSVs to transport landscaping 
supplies and maintenance supplies to require the design of LSVs to 
handle such payloads. For example, if a resort or gated community 
wants to use an LSV to transport landscaping supplies, the LSV must 
be capable of carting a payload of nearly 1000 pounds of fertilizer, 
top soil, tools or other supplies. NHTSA simply did not address 
these practical requirements when it concluded that 2500 lbs. GVWR 
was adequate for the ``intended function'' of LSV trucks * * *

    GEM also does not believe that the 2,500-pound GVWR limit 
adequately compensates for the weight needed by an electric LSV for its 
battery power supply. GEM noted:

Today's marketplace is driven by such temporary realities as the 
price of gasoline, which currently favors electric vehicles. But, 
other things being equal (including the price of gasoline), an 
[internal combustion] LSV vehicle enjoys an advantage if a GVWR 
maximum is being established because it naturally has a payload 
cushion of about 300 pounds relative to an electric LSV vehicle when 
the weight of the battery pack is taken into account * * *. `` All 
that GEM seeks in the U.S. market is a comparable ``level playing 
field'' by allowing LSV trucks to weigh as much as 3000 pounds GVWR, 
which would accommodate the electric batteries and an appropriate 
payload for LSV trucks.

III. Today's Final Rule in Response to Petitions for Reconsideration

    After considering the issues raised by the petitioners, we have 
determined that a GVWR limit of less than 3,000 pounds for LSVs, 
coupled with the 40 km/h (25 mph) speed limitation, represents an 
effective balance of limiting this class to small vehicles intended for 
use in controlled, low-speed environments while permitting functional 
truck-like vehicles with a useful cargo capacity.
    Limiting LSVs to those with a GVWR less than 3,000 lbs is 
consistent with the safety and practicability concerns that gave rise 
to the original LSV definition, much in the same manner as the 2,500 
lbs limit. The 3,000 lbs GVWR limit continues to exclude vehicles from 
the LSV definition for which the LSV requirements are not appropriate, 
i.e., vehicles that would be used outside planned communities and 
controlled low-speed environments.
    In the August 2005 final rule, we stated that the agency was 
incorporating a 2,500 lbs GVWR limit to prevent possible attempts to 
circumvent FMVSSs for passenger cars, trucks, and multi-purpose 
passenger vehicles. Today's increase of the GVWR limit by 500 pounds 
will not have a significant effect on that goal.
    We note that, in the NPRM, the agency presented the results of a 
survey of the GVWR of lighter rated vehicles. The agency identified 
only one passenger car, the model year 2003 Honda Insight, that had a 
GVWR below 2,500 lbs (68 FR 683221).\3\ Further, the 2003 Honda Insight 
was the only vehicle with a GVWR below 3,000 lbs. Moreover, in 
reviewing the current light truck fleet, we have identified the Ford 
Ranger as the lightest rated light truck, with a GVWR of 4,380 pounds, 
a rating well above the limit established in this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The model year 2003 Honda Insight had a GVWR of 
approximately 2200 lbs. GEM commented that the current model year 
Insight has a GVWR of almost 2,400 lbs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As such, we do not believe that a 3,000 lbs GVWR limit will be more 
likely to result in attempts to circumvent the FMVSSs for passenger 
cars and light trucks, than a 2,500 lbs GVWR limit. Moreover, the 3,000 
lbs limit continues to provide an objective delineation between 
vehicles for which the LSV requirements are appropriate and those that 
can be designed to comply with the full set of FMVSSs.
    In the final rule, we stated that one of the reasons the agency set 
the maximum GVWR at 2,500-pounds for the new LSV definition was that 
there are currently no performance requirements for service brakes and 
tires that are appropriate for these vehicles. We believe that the 
difference in GVWR between 2,500-pounds and 3,000 pounds is not 
significant with respect to this issue, particularly given that the 
vehicles at issue will have a maximum speed capability of 40 km/h (25 
mph).
    We believe the limit of less than 3,000 pounds GVWR represents an 
effective balance of our desire to keep this class of motor vehicles 
narrow--limited to small vehicles--without completely precluding truck-
like vehicles with a useful cargo capacity. Accordingly, in response to 
the petitions for reconsideration, this rule revises the definition of 
LSV to read as follows:

    Low-speed vehicle means a vehicle,
    (a) that is 4-wheeled,
    (b) whose speed attainable in 1.6 km (1 mile) is more than 32 
kilometers per hour (20 miles per hour) and not more than 40 
kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) on a paved level surface, 
and
    (c) whose GVWR is less than 1,361 kilograms (3,000 pounds).

IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

    Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735, 
October 4, 1993), provides for making

[[Page 20028]]

determinations whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and 
to the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines a 
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a 
rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    This rulemaking document was not reviewed under Executive Order 
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' Since this rule will make 
the LSV definition less restrictive it will not result in an annual 
effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
    This final rule will permit current LSV manufacturers to produce 
LSVs for more work-oriented functions. In the petitions for 
reconsideration received by the agency, manufacturers stated that the 
definition adopted today will allow them to expand production to meet a 
consumer need.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice 
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). 
No regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency 
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of 
the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    I certify that the proposed amendment will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    The following is the agency's statement providing the factual basis 
for the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). The final rule directly 
affects motor vehicle manufacturers, specifically, manufacturers of 
LSVs. North American Industry Classification System Codes (NAISC) code 
number 336111, Automobile Manufacturing, prescribes a small business 
size standard of 1,000 or fewer employees. NAISC code number 336211, 
Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing, prescribes a small business size 
standard of 1,000 or fewer employees.
    The establishment of the new category of motor vehicles, low-speed 
vehicles, under FMVSS No. 500, in 1998, provided small business with 
the opportunity to expand into a new market. This final rule will 
further permit the manufacture of LSVs to meet additional needs, by 
increasing the GVWR of the LSV class from 2,500 pounds to 3,000 pounds.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this final rule under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) and determined that it will not impose any 
new information collection requirements as that term is defined by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 5 CFR part 1320.

The National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has also considered this final rule under the National 
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it will have no 
significant impact on the human environment. LSV usage is very small in 
comparison to that of motor vehicles as a whole; therefore, any change 
to the LSV segment does not have a significant environmental effect.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires 
agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and 
other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate 
likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than 
$100 million annually. This final rule does not result in annual 
expenditures exceeding the $100 million threshold.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132 on ``Federalism'' requires us to develop an 
accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State 
and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have 
federalism implications.'' The Executive Order defines this phrase to 
include regulations ``that have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government.''
    The agency has analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles 
and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132 and has determined that 
it will not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant 
consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a 
federalism summary impact statement.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effect on the States, on 
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132.
    In the 1998 final rule, which established the LSV definition, the 
agency noted that:

Under the preemption provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1), with 
respect to those areas of a motor vehicle's safety performance 
regulated by the Federal Government, any state and local safety 
standards addressing those areas must be identical. Thus, the state 
or local standard, if any, for vehicles classified as LSVs must be 
identical to Standard No. 500 in those areas covered by that 
standard. For example, since Standard No. 500 addresses the subject 
of the type of lights which must be provided, state and local 
governments may not require additional types of lights. Further, 
since the agency has not specified performance requirements for any 
of the required lights, state and local governments may not do so 
either.

63 FR at 33215. In a 1998 NPRM we revised this discussion by stating 
that:

[W]e have re-examined our statements about preemption in the 
preamble of the final rule. In those statements, we explained that, 
in view of our conscious decision not to adopt any performance 
requirements for most of the types of equipment required by Standard 
No. 500, the states were preempted from doing so * * *. As a result 
of re-examining our views, we have concluded that we should not 
assert * * * preemption in this particular situation. Accordingly, 
we agree that the states may adopt and apply their own performance 
requirements for required LSV lighting equipment, mirrors, and 
parking brakes until we have established performance requirements 
for those items of equipment. However, the states remain precluded 
from adopting additional equipment requirements in areas covered by 
Standard No. 500.

65 FR 53219, 53220; September 1, 2000.

[[Page 20029]]

    Today's rule revises the definition of the term ``low-speed 
vehicle'' (LSV) in 49 CFR part 571. We note that California's 
definition of ``low-speed vehicle'' establishes a maximum ``unladen 
weight of 1,800 pounds'' (Cal. Vehicle Code Sec.  385.5).\4\ Unlike 
GVWR, the unladen weight is the weight of the vehicle without occupants 
or cargo. (See, Cal. Vehicle Code Sec.  289).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ We also note that Hawaii has incorporated a maximum 
``unladen weight'' in its definition of NEV, which is limited to 
electrically powered motor vehicles (HRS Sec.  286-2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A difference in the definition of LSV between State and Federal 
laws could have implications with respect to preemption of State laws. 
Under Federal law, a vehicle that meets the Federal definition of 
``low-speed vehicle'' must be manufactured to conform to FMVSS No. 500. 
Similarly, a vehicle that meets the Federal definition of ``passenger 
car,'' ``multipurpose passenger vehicle,'' or ``truck,'' must be 
manufactured to meet the FMVSSs applicable to that vehicle type, 
regardless of how the vehicle may be classified under State law.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), when a Federal motor vehicle safety 
standard is in effect, a State or a political subdivision of a State 
may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same 
aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment 
only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this 
chapter. Different motor vehicle safety standards apply depending on 
how a vehicle is classified, i.e., its vehicle type. If a State law 
classifies a vehicle differently than Federal law, preemption is an 
issue under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b) if: (1) The State classification results 
in the vehicle being subject to a State standard applicable to the same 
aspect of performance regulated by a FMVSS, and (2) the State standard 
is not identical to the FMVSS. In such an instance, the State safety 
standard would be preempted.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This rule does not have any retroactive effect. 49 U.S.C. 21461 
sets forth a procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, 
amending or revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That 
section does not require submission of a petition for reconsideration 
or other administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in 
court. The issue of preemption is discussed below in the section on 
Federalism.

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center 
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may 
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document 
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

Data Quality Guidelines

    After reviewing the provisions of the final rule, pursuant to OMB's 
Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, 
Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies 
(``Guidelines'') issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
(67 FR 8452, Feb. 22, 2002) and published in final form by the 
Department of Transportation on October 1, 2002 (67 FR 61719), NHTSA 
has determined that nothing in this rulemaking action would result in 
``information dissemination'' to the public, as that term is defined in 
the Guidelines.

Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, 
health or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives considered by us. As noted earlier, this rule is 
not economically significant, nor does it concern a safety risk with a 
disproportionate effect on children.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary 
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would 
be inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., the statutory provisions 
regarding NHTSA's vehicle safety authority) or otherwise impractical. 
In meeting that available and potentially applicable voluntary 
consensus standard, we are required by the Act to provide Congress, 
through OMB, with an explanation of the reasons for not using such 
standards. The agency specifically considered SAE J-2358 in the 
development of this final rule.

Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all submissions 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
https://dms.dot.gov.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Low-speed vehicles.


0
For reasons set forth in the preamble, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 to 
revise Sec.  571.3 to read as follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30166 and 30177; delegation of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

Subpart A--General

0
2. Section 571.3(b) is amended by revising the term ``low-speed 
vehicle'' to read as follows:


Sec.  571.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) Other definitions. * * *
    Low-speed vehicle (LSV) means a motor vehicle,
    (1) That is 4-wheeled,
    (2) Whose speed attainable in 1.6 km (1 mile) is more than 32 
kilometers per hour (20 miles per hour) and not more than 40 kilometers 
per hour (25 miles per hour) on a paved level surface, and
    (3) Whose GVWR is less than 1,361 kilograms (3,000 pounds).
* * * * *

    Issued: April 11, 2006.
Ronald L. Medford,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.
[FR Doc. 06-3590 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P