Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Low Speed Vehicles, 55801-55804 [E8-22736]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Date
Location
October 14, 2008 ....
Cisco Pittsburgh, 323 North Shore Drive, Pittsburgh, PA
15212, POC: Tom Schweizer, 412–237–6200 (main bldg
phone).
Via Webcast: 7 a.m. Mountain Daylight Savings Time .........
55801
Contact information
Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances 202–693–
9440.
Cisco Englewood (Denver), 9155 East Nichols Avenue,
Suite 400, Englewood, Colorado 80112, 720–875–2900
(main bldg phone), POC: Shannon Gonzales.
Persons may participate via audio
only at the following locations. At these
locations persons will not be able to
make oral presentations.
Date
Location
Contact information
October 14, 2008 ....
Via Audio: 9 a.m. Eastern Daylight Savings Time ................
Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances 202–693–
9440.
October 14, 2008 ....
The National Mine Health and Safety Academy, 1301 Airport Road, Beaver, WV 25813.
Via Audio: 8 a.m. Central Daylight Savings Time .................
Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances 202–693–
9440.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Coal Mine Safety and Health, Coal District 11 Office, 135
Gemini Circle, Suite 213, Birmingham, AL 35209.
Persons will need an ID to enter all
locations and may be subject to a
security check.
The hearing will begin with an
opening statement from MSHA,
followed by an opportunity for members
of the public to make oral presentations.
Requests to speak at the hearing should
be made at least 5 days prior to the
hearing date. Requests to speak may be
made by telephone (202–693–9440),
facsimile (202–693–9441), electronic
mail zzMSHA-comments@dol.gov or
mail (MSHA, Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances, 1100
Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350,
Arlington, Virginia 22209–3939).
Because members of the public will be
able to make oral presentations via
videoconference at several locations, for
scheduling purposes, MSHA encourages
all parties wishing to speak to notify the
Agency in advance.
Any unallocated time at the end of the
hearing will be made available to
persons making same-day requests to
speak. Same-day requestors will speak
in the order that they sign in at the
hearing. At the discretion of the
presiding official, the time allocated to
each speaker for their presentation may
be limited. Speakers and other attendees
may also present information to the
MSHA panel for inclusion in the
rulemaking record.
The hearing will be conducted in an
informal manner. Formal rules of
evidence and cross examination will not
apply. The hearing panel may ask
questions of speakers. Speakers may ask
questions of the hearing panel. MSHA
will make a transcript of the hearing,
post it on MSHA’s Web site https://
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:23 Sep 25, 2008
Jkt 214001
www.msha.gov, and include it in the
rulemaking record. A link to the
complete webcast will be placed on
MSHA’s Web site several days after the
hearing.
MSHA will accept post-hearing
written comments and data for the
record from any interested party,
including those not presenting oral
statements, by midnight Eastern
Daylight Savings Time on October 29,
2008.
Dated: September 22, 2008.
Richard E. Stickler,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety
and Health.
[FR Doc. E8–22679 Filed 9–23–08; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4510–43–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA–2006–24488]
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Low Speed Vehicles
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Denial of petition for
reconsideration.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document responds to a
petition for reconsideration of our 2006
final rule increasing the maximum gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) for low
speed vehicles (LSVs) to 3,000 pounds.
The agency established a GVWR limit
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(initially set at 2,500 pounds) in order
to provide an objective means to
delineate between vehicles for which
the limited LSV requirements are
appropriate and those that can be
designed to meet the full set of Federal
motor vehicle safety standards. Our
2006 final rule increased the limit to
3,000 pounds, in order to accommodate
the heavier weight of load-carrying
LSVs and electric batteries. A petition
for reconsideration was received from
Electronic Transportation Applications
(ETA), which seeks to further increase
the GVWR limit for electric-powered
LSVs to 4,000 pounds, as well as to add
additional regulations to regulate
braking performance and tire
specifications. The agency is denying
the petitioner’s request for the reasons
discussed in this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For technical issues: Gayle Dalrymple,
Office of Crash Avoidance Standards,
NVS–123, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration. Telephone: 202–
366–5559. Facsimile: 202–493–2739,
e-mail gayle.dalrymple@nhtsa.dot.gov.
For legal issues: Mr. Ari J. Scott,
NHTSA Office of the Chief Counsel.
Telephone: (202) 366–2992. Facsimile:
(202) 366–3820, e-mail
ari.scott@nhtsa.dot.gov.
Both officials can be reached by mail
at the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background of the LSV Rulemakings
II. Petition for Reconsideration
III. Agency Response
E:\FR\FM\26SEP1.SGM
26SEP1
55802
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Proposed Rules
a. Rationale for 3,000 Pound GVWR
i. Limitation of LSVs to Appropriate
Vehicles
ii. Importation of Foreign Vehicles as LSVs
b. Technology-Neutral Regulation
IV. Conclusion
I. Background of the LSV Rulemakings
NHTSA established Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
500, ‘‘Low speed vehicles,’’ in 1998 in
response to the rising use of ‘‘golf cars’’
and neighborhood electric vehicles
(NEVs). See 63 FR 33194. This new
FMVSS and vehicles class definition
responded to the growing public interest
in using small vehicles to make short
trips for shopping, social, and
recreational purposes, primarily within
retirement or other planned, selfcontained communities. The definition
of an LSV established in that
rulemaking was, ‘‘a 4-wheeled motor
vehicle, other than a truck, whose speed
attainable in 1.6 km (1 mile) is more
than 32 kilometers per hour (20 miles
per hour) and not more than 40
kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour)
on a paved level surface.
In 2005, NHTSA published a final
rule amending the definition of LSVs by
dropping the restriction on trucks, and
instead establishing a 2,500 pound
maximum GVWR. See 70 FR 48313.
This allowed small vehicles designed
for work-related applications within the
intended communities, such as
landscaping or delivery purposes, to be
included within the definition of an
LSV, without opening the category to
unintended vehicles, such as streetsweepers or speed-modified passenger
cars. Additionally, in 2006, in response
to petitions for reconsideration from
Dynasty Electric Car Corporation and
Global Electric Motorcars (GEM), both
manufacturers of electric LSVs, NHTSA
increased the maximum GVWR for LSVs
to 3,000 pounds. This was done, in part,
to ‘‘level the playing field’’ between
electric and gasoline-powered LSVs, by
allowing for the additional weight in
batteries required by electric vehicles.
See 71 FR 20026.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
II. Petition for Reconsideration
ETA, a corporation involved in
providing vehicle testing services for the
Department of Energy, submitted a
petition for reconsideration, dated June
2, 2006, asking NHTSA to reconsider its
decision on April 19, 2006 that
amended FMVSS No. 500 to raise the
maximum permissible GVWR for a LSV
to 3,000 pounds. ETA requested that
NHTSA accommodate the weight of
batteries by raising the maximum
GVWR of electric-powered vehicles still
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:23 Sep 25, 2008
Jkt 214001
further to 4,000 pounds.1 To address
some of the side effects of that increase,
ETA also suggested that the agency
consider adopting brake performance
and tire weight rating requirements for
LSVs.
In its petition, ETA stated that there
is a growing demand to reduce or
eliminate the numbers of petroleumfueled vehicles normally used in
restricted areas, but that these vehicles
need to be licensed for use on public
roads as these areas are situated in or
around public roadways. Further, it
suggested that there is an increasing
need in these operating environments
for truck-like vehicles designed to carry
cargo, such as for landscaping and
maintenance matters.
ETA argued that the current GVWR
limitation of 3,000 pounds hinders the
development of electric LSVs that can
function as trucks. Specifically, because
of the stop-and-go driving conditions in
which these trucks operate, the wear on
their electric batteries necessitates
extremely large batteries. According to
ETA, these batteries can weigh as much
as 600 pounds or more. Given the
current GVWR limit and the need to
provide cargo capacity, ETA said the
weight of the batteries curtails the
weight of the chassis. For example, ETA
stated that an LSV with a 661 pound
battery and a cargo capacity of 1,000
pounds cannot have a chassis weight
greater than 1,339 pounds under the
current GVWR limit. According to the
petition, this creates a major hindrance
to designing cargo carrying electric
LSVs. ETA stated that this puts electricpowered LSVs at a disadvantage relative
to gas-powered LSVs, which use
gasoline as fuel, and thus can have more
substantial chasses while remaining
under the 3,000 pound limit.
ETA also argued that allowing larger
vehicles to be classified as LSVs would
spur production of vehicles in the
small-truck market, because the need
created by the current GVWR limit to
design vehicles that comply with all
FMVSS standards adds a substantial
cost to vehicles produced in low
quantities. ETA claimed that it could
cost over $50 million to fully design and
certify a vehicle to comply with the full
requirements of the FMVSSs, a large
burden on manufacturers of vehicles
produced in small quantities. Finally,
ETA claimed that the increase in the
GVWR limitation would allow the
importation and conversion of foreign
highway speed vehicles that do not
meet the FMVSSs for cars or trucks to
meet LSV requirements.
1 71
PO 00000
FR 20026; Docket No. NHTSA–06–24488.
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
III. Agency Response
After carefully considering ETA’s
petition to increase the GVWR limit for
electric-powered LSVs, we have decided
to deny the petition. There are two
primary reasons for this decision. The
first is that we believe that vehicles over
3,000 pounds are capable of complying
with the full requirements of the
FMVSSs. Secondly, in line with our
policy in establishing a GVWR limit for
LSVs in the first place, we believe that
increasing the GVWR limit would
encourage the use of LSVs in
circumstances where it could pose an
unreasonable risk to safety. These
reasons are described at greater length
below.
a. Rationale for 3,000 Pound GVWR
As stated above, the definition of
LSVs originally did not contain a
maximum GVWR. The definition for an
LSV established in that final rule was:
A 4-wheeled motor vehicle, other than a
truck, whose speed attainable in 1.6 km (1
mile) is more than 32 kilometers per hour (20
miles per hour) and not more than 40
kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) on
a paved level surface.
The logic behind this rulemaking was
that these vehicles were so small that
they could not practicably meet the full
regimen of FMVSSs required of other
motor vehicles.2 Trucks were excluded
because in all of the public hearings and
docket submissions relating to LSVs and
their uses proponents described them as
passenger vehicles. Also, there were
existing large, slow-moving workrelated trucks, such as street sweepers,
that already met FMVSSs for their
vehicle class that would have become
excluded from those FMVSSs had
trucks not been excluded from the
definition of LSVs.
When reconsidering the LSV
definition, NHTSA was presented with
arguments that small, work-related
trucks would be used in the same
environments as passenger-carrying
LSVs. The agency decided that this was
a desirable option, and modified the
definition of LSVs accordingly. A
GVWR limitation was substituted for the
‘‘other than a truck’’ portion of the
definition for several reasons. The first
was to provide an objective means for
delineating between the vehicles for
which the LSV requirements are
appropriate (i.e., those vehicles that are
too small to meet the full FMVSS
requirements) and those vehicles that
can be designed to meet the full set of
FMVSSs. The second reason was that
the low GVWR limit prevents attempts
2 See
E:\FR\FM\26SEP1.SGM
62 FR 1077, January 8, 1997.
26SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Proposed Rules
to circumvent FMVSSs for cars, trucks,
and multipurpose passenger vehicles by
applying the LSV classification to
vehicles types that are able to meet the
standards.3 These reasons are discussed
in more detail below.
i. Limitation of LSVs to Appropriate
Vehicles
In denying this petition to further
increase the maximum GVWR for LSVs,
the agency believes it highly important
to reiterate the rationale for classifying
vehicles as LSVs in the first place. In the
original rulemaking, we noted that
several States, such as Florida and
California, had passed legislation
permitting golf carts and NEVs to use
public roads in some areas. However,
because NHTSA considered those
vehicles which traveled 20 mph or
faster to be ‘‘motor vehicles,’’ they could
not be manufactured unless they met
the FMVSSs for passenger cars.
Therefore, as we stated in the 1998 final
rule, ‘‘[t]his creates a conflict with the
state and local laws because compliance
with the full range of those standards is
not feasible for these small vehicles.’’ 4
At the heart of the rulemaking
regarding LSVs is that they were too
small to meet the requirements of
passenger cars, and would only be used
in controlled, low-speed environments,
where the risk of collision would be
small. ETA’s recommendation to
increase the GVWR limits conflict with
NHTSA’s rationale for establishing the
GVWR limitation with regard to this
rationale. The contradiction is the fact
that vehicles with a GVWR of over 3,000
are simply not too small to meet the full
FMVSSs. In the NPRM discussing the
rationale for a 2,500 pound GVWR limit,
the agency presented a list of the
GVWRs of a variety of fully FMVSScompliant passenger cars and SUVs.
This list is repeated here (this relates to
model year 2003): 5
Type
Honda Insight ..................................................................................................
Toyota Echo ....................................................................................................
Hyundai Accent ...............................................................................................
Chevrolet Tracker ...........................................................................................
Honda Civic .....................................................................................................
Toyota Prius ....................................................................................................
Ford Focus ......................................................................................................
Toyota RAV4 ...................................................................................................
Jeep Wrangler .................................................................................................
Ford Ranger ....................................................................................................
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Vehicle
Passenger car ..............................................................
Passenger car ..............................................................
Passenger car ..............................................................
SUV ..............................................................................
Passenger car ..............................................................
Passenger car ..............................................................
Passenger car ..............................................................
SUV ..............................................................................
SUV ..............................................................................
Extended cab pick-up ..................................................
A 2,500-pound GVWR limit was
selected because it was lighter than all
FMVSS-compliant passenger cars and
SUVs, with the exception of the Honda
Insight. It should be noted that the
2,500-pound limit considers the weight
of the gasoline-powered Honda Insight,
and then adds about 300 pounds to
account for the additional weight of
electric batteries over fuel.6 As we
stated above, the 2006 rule extended the
limitation to 3,000 pounds. This, it was
noted, still means that the Honda
Insight was the only fully FMVSScompliant passenger car to be lighter
than the heaviest LSV.
However, if ETA’s suggestion that
electric LSVs have a maximum GVWR
of 4,000 pounds, then they could be
considerably heavier than many
passenger cars, and even some SUVs,
even factoring in a substantial
allowance for the weight of the electric
batteries. This would be inconsistent
with NHTSA’s rationale to make LSVs
subject to less stringent safety
requirements than passenger cars, in
large part because they are ‘‘too small’’
to meet those requirements.
A second reason why raising the
GVWR for electric LSVs is contrary to
NHTSA’s policy is that this would
3 70
FR 48316.
FR 33194.
5 68 FR 68321.
We believe that, as LSVs become equipped
with additional amenities, such as air
conditioning, solid doors, and batteries for
extended range, they lose the basic
characteristics of a special vehicle designed
for transportation within a planned, limited
environment. Instead, these vehicles take-on
the profile of a small, traditional passenger
car vehicle, and in some cases, may be
marketed as a small passenger car or as a
substitute for a small passenger car. Even
with a 25 mph speed limitation, we are
concerned that LSVs that have characteristics
and attributes of traditional passenger cars
will be more likely to be used outside of
planned communities and instead, more
regularly mix with traffic.8
6 See
70 FR 48317.
figure is derived from subtracting a 1,000pound cargo capacity and a 661-pound battery from
the 3,000-pound maximum GVWR.
18:23 Sep 25, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
GVWR
in pounds
2,212
3,010
3,310
3,483
3,485
3,615
3,620
3,841
4,450
4,800
ETA’s rationale for increasing the
weight of LSVs accomplishes the very
end that NHTSA sought to avoid by
establishing the 2,500-pound, and later
3,000-pound, GVWR limitation. As ETA
correctly points out, raising the
maximum weight of electric LSVs
would encourage the development of
larger, sturdier models. This would, in
turn, likely extend their use into areas
beyond those that NHTSA intended
LSVs to go, namely, outside of
controlled, low-speed environments.
While NHTSA has no desire to restrict
the use of electric vehicles, as opposed
to gasoline-powered vehicles, on the
majority of public roads, we believe that
the vehicles using those roadways
should meet the full set of FMVSS
requirements.
ii. Importation of Foreign Vehicles as
LSVs
A second argument put forth in ETA’s
petition for reconsideration is that
increasing the maximum GVWR for
electric LSVs would allow the
importation of foreign electric vehicles
without their having to conform to the
full FMVSS requirements. As ETA
states, ‘‘[t]hese vehicles are appealing as
conversions to LSVs as they offer
8 70
FR 48316.
7 This
4 63
VerDate Aug<31>2005
encourage the development of heavier,
more substantial LSVs. In its petition,
ETA stated that the current 3,000-pound
GVWR limit limits the chassis to less
than 1339 pounds.7 This, it claims, will
result in a ‘‘lightweight chassis’’ that
will ‘‘not provide much occupant
protection in the event of a crash.’’ ETA
continues by saying that ‘‘manufacturers
should be encouraged to increase
chassis mass and, therefore, strength to
ensure proper occupant safety.’’
In the 2003 final rule, in which
NHTSA provided the rationale to
change to a GVWR-based definition of
LSVs, we said:
55803
E:\FR\FM\26SEP1.SGM
26SEP1
55804
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
durable construction and the ability to
carry heavier loads at lower costs than
a full-speed [vehicle] or purposedesigned LSV.’’ While we agree that
acceding to ETA’s request would have
this effect, it is again an effect we hope
to avoid.
To begin, we note that foreign made
on-road motor vehicles, that are capable
of high-speed use, are not eligible to be
transformed into LSVs via the adoption
of a speed-limiting governor. In a June
28, 2000 letter of interpretation to Mr.
Thomas E. Dahl on this issue, we stated
there are no circumstances under which
the addition of a speed governing device
to a high-speed vehicle would make the
vehicle meet the definition of an LSV.
After explaining that we established the
LSV class because the vehicles were too
small to meet the full FMVSS
requirements, we stated that a common
feature of this class appeared to be that
they were capable of a maximum speed
of 25 mph as designed and
manufactured. This is still our
interpretation of the regulation.
Furthermore, the agency has stated
several times that one concern we have
regarding the LSV classification is that
it could be used as a mechanism to
import foreign motor vehicles without
first making them conform to the
FMVSSs. For example, in the 2005 final
rule, we stated that ‘‘[t]he [2,500-pound]
GVWR limit prevents attempts to
circumvent FMVSSs for cars, trucks,
and multipurpose passenger vehicles by
applying the LSV classification to
vehicle types that are able to meet the
[full FMVSS] standards.’’ 9 ETA’s
recommended 4,000-pound limit would
permit the result we intended to
prevent, and we view that as a reason
to deny the petition.
b. Technology-Neutral Regulation
ETA’s final argument is that the
current GVWR limitation provides an
advantage to gasoline-powered vehicles
over electric vehicles. The agency is
aware that, with current technology, the
batteries needed to power an electric
vehicle weigh substantially more than
the fuel needed to power an internal
combustion engine. This was
considered to some extent in our
original rulemaking establishing the
2,500-pound GVWR limit in 2005, and
considered extensively in our 2006 rule
increasing that limit to 3,000 pounds, a
rule undertaken at the behest of two
electric LSV manufacturers.
In the petitions that led to the 2006
rulemaking, NHTSA was presented with
two differing solutions to this problem.
The first, presented by Dynasty Electric
Car Corporation, recommended a 2,500pound GVWR restriction for internal
combustion engine LSVs and a 2,800pound GVWR restriction for electric
LSVs. The second, recommended by
GEM, requested that the GVWR limit be
raised to 3,000 pounds for all LSVs, as
this would accommodate electric LSVs
with a cargo-carrying capacity of 1,000
pounds.
In the 2005 rule establishing the
GVWR limitation, we discussed why we
were not establishing different GVWR
limitations for electric and gasolinepowered vehicles, despite the issue
regarding the weight of the batteries. We
noted that each propulsion type has its
own advantages. While gasolinepowered vehicles are lighter, ‘‘the fact
that electric LSVs are successful in the
market indicates that any advantage of
the [internal combustion] vehicle due to
greater load capacity under our GVWR
restriction will be overcome by other
attractions of the electric vehicle to
consumers.’’ 10 ETA, perhaps
inadvertently, cites several of these
advantages in its petition. These include
the high cost of gasoline, government
mandates to reduce or eliminate
petroleum-fueled vehicles from fleets,
and the environmental benefits of
electric vehicles. Therefore, we do not
believe it is necessary to increase the
regulatory complexity by setting
different GVWR limitations based on
propulsion method.
Finally, we believe that 3,000 pounds
is a level at which electric LSVs that
perform cargo-carrying work are
practicable to build. In the 2006 final
rule, we quoted one of the petitioners,
GEM, where it stated:
All that GEM seeks in the U.S. market is
a comparable ‘‘level playing field’’ by
allowing LSV trucks to weigh as much as
3000 pounds GVWR, which would
accommodate the electric batteries and an
appropriate payload for LSV trucks.
We note that GEM currently produces a
cargo-carrying electric LSV with a
GVWR of 3,000 pounds or less. We
noted on GEM’s Web site the GEM eL
XD, which has a GVWR of 3,000
pounds, a payload capacity of 1,450
pounds, a top speed of 25 mph, and a
range of up to 40 miles.11 This example
illustrates that the current GVWR limit
permits the development of cargocarrying, electric LSVs.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, we are
denying ETA’s petition to increase the
maximum allowable GVWR to 4,000
10 70
FR 48317.
GEM Web site, available at https://
www.gemcar.com.
11 See
9 70
FR 48316.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:23 Sep 25, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
pounds for electric LSVs. Furthermore,
because we are not increasing the
maximum allowable GVWR, we are
denying ETA’s recommendation to
establish brake requirements and tire
weight rating requirements in FMVSS
No. 500.
Issued on: September 19, 2008.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E8–22736 Filed 9–25–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0154]
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Medium Speed Vehicles
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Denial of petition for
rulemaking.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document denies
petitions for rulemaking submitted by
Environmental Motors, and Porteon
Electric Vehicles, Inc. and Mirox
Corporation. The petitioners requested
that NHTSA commence rulemaking to
create a new class of motor vehicles
known as medium speed vehicles,
which would have a maximum speed
capability of 35 mph. The petitioners
contemplated that these vehicles would
be subject to a set of safety standards
greater than those that apply to low
speed vehicles but substantially less
than the full set of safety standards that
apply to other light vehicles such as
passenger cars. The petitioners cited a
number of reasons in support of their
petition, the most significant of which
related to potential environmental
benefits. After carefully reviewing the
petitions, we are denying them because
the introduction of such a class of motor
vehicles without the full complement of
safety features required for other light
vehicles such as passenger cars would
result in significantly greater risk of
deaths and serious injuries. While
NHTSA agrees with the importance of
environmental issues, the agency
believes that it is neither necessary nor
appropriate to significantly increase the
risk of deaths and serious injuries to
save fuel.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For technical issues: Gayle Dalrymple,
Office of Crash Avoidance Standards,
NVS–123. Telephone: 202–366–5559;
E:\FR\FM\26SEP1.SGM
26SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 188 (Friday, September 26, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55801-55804]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22736]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2006-24488]
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Low Speed Vehicles
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Denial of petition for reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document responds to a petition for reconsideration of
our 2006 final rule increasing the maximum gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR) for low speed vehicles (LSVs) to 3,000 pounds. The agency
established a GVWR limit (initially set at 2,500 pounds) in order to
provide an objective means to delineate between vehicles for which the
limited LSV requirements are appropriate and those that can be designed
to meet the full set of Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Our
2006 final rule increased the limit to 3,000 pounds, in order to
accommodate the heavier weight of load-carrying LSVs and electric
batteries. A petition for reconsideration was received from Electronic
Transportation Applications (ETA), which seeks to further increase the
GVWR limit for electric-powered LSVs to 4,000 pounds, as well as to add
additional regulations to regulate braking performance and tire
specifications. The agency is denying the petitioner's request for the
reasons discussed in this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For technical issues: Gayle Dalrymple, Office of Crash Avoidance
Standards, NVS-123, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Telephone: 202-366-5559. Facsimile: 202-493-2739, e-mail
gayle.dalrymple@nhtsa.dot.gov.
For legal issues: Mr. Ari J. Scott, NHTSA Office of the Chief
Counsel. Telephone: (202) 366-2992. Facsimile: (202) 366-3820, e-mail
ari.scott@nhtsa.dot.gov.
Both officials can be reached by mail at the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background of the LSV Rulemakings
II. Petition for Reconsideration
III. Agency Response
[[Page 55802]]
a. Rationale for 3,000 Pound GVWR
i. Limitation of LSVs to Appropriate Vehicles
ii. Importation of Foreign Vehicles as LSVs
b. Technology-Neutral Regulation
IV. Conclusion
I. Background of the LSV Rulemakings
NHTSA established Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
500, ``Low speed vehicles,'' in 1998 in response to the rising use of
``golf cars'' and neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs). See 63 FR
33194. This new FMVSS and vehicles class definition responded to the
growing public interest in using small vehicles to make short trips for
shopping, social, and recreational purposes, primarily within
retirement or other planned, self-contained communities. The definition
of an LSV established in that rulemaking was, ``a 4-wheeled motor
vehicle, other than a truck, whose speed attainable in 1.6 km (1 mile)
is more than 32 kilometers per hour (20 miles per hour) and not more
than 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) on a paved level
surface.
In 2005, NHTSA published a final rule amending the definition of
LSVs by dropping the restriction on trucks, and instead establishing a
2,500 pound maximum GVWR. See 70 FR 48313. This allowed small vehicles
designed for work-related applications within the intended communities,
such as landscaping or delivery purposes, to be included within the
definition of an LSV, without opening the category to unintended
vehicles, such as street-sweepers or speed-modified passenger cars.
Additionally, in 2006, in response to petitions for reconsideration
from Dynasty Electric Car Corporation and Global Electric Motorcars
(GEM), both manufacturers of electric LSVs, NHTSA increased the maximum
GVWR for LSVs to 3,000 pounds. This was done, in part, to ``level the
playing field'' between electric and gasoline-powered LSVs, by allowing
for the additional weight in batteries required by electric vehicles.
See 71 FR 20026.
II. Petition for Reconsideration
ETA, a corporation involved in providing vehicle testing services
for the Department of Energy, submitted a petition for reconsideration,
dated June 2, 2006, asking NHTSA to reconsider its decision on April
19, 2006 that amended FMVSS No. 500 to raise the maximum permissible
GVWR for a LSV to 3,000 pounds. ETA requested that NHTSA accommodate
the weight of batteries by raising the maximum GVWR of electric-powered
vehicles still further to 4,000 pounds.\1\ To address some of the side
effects of that increase, ETA also suggested that the agency consider
adopting brake performance and tire weight rating requirements for
LSVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 71 FR 20026; Docket No. NHTSA-06-24488.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its petition, ETA stated that there is a growing demand to
reduce or eliminate the numbers of petroleum-fueled vehicles normally
used in restricted areas, but that these vehicles need to be licensed
for use on public roads as these areas are situated in or around public
roadways. Further, it suggested that there is an increasing need in
these operating environments for truck-like vehicles designed to carry
cargo, such as for landscaping and maintenance matters.
ETA argued that the current GVWR limitation of 3,000 pounds hinders
the development of electric LSVs that can function as trucks.
Specifically, because of the stop-and-go driving conditions in which
these trucks operate, the wear on their electric batteries necessitates
extremely large batteries. According to ETA, these batteries can weigh
as much as 600 pounds or more. Given the current GVWR limit and the
need to provide cargo capacity, ETA said the weight of the batteries
curtails the weight of the chassis. For example, ETA stated that an LSV
with a 661 pound battery and a cargo capacity of 1,000 pounds cannot
have a chassis weight greater than 1,339 pounds under the current GVWR
limit. According to the petition, this creates a major hindrance to
designing cargo carrying electric LSVs. ETA stated that this puts
electric-powered LSVs at a disadvantage relative to gas-powered LSVs,
which use gasoline as fuel, and thus can have more substantial chasses
while remaining under the 3,000 pound limit.
ETA also argued that allowing larger vehicles to be classified as
LSVs would spur production of vehicles in the small-truck market,
because the need created by the current GVWR limit to design vehicles
that comply with all FMVSS standards adds a substantial cost to
vehicles produced in low quantities. ETA claimed that it could cost
over $50 million to fully design and certify a vehicle to comply with
the full requirements of the FMVSSs, a large burden on manufacturers of
vehicles produced in small quantities. Finally, ETA claimed that the
increase in the GVWR limitation would allow the importation and
conversion of foreign highway speed vehicles that do not meet the
FMVSSs for cars or trucks to meet LSV requirements.
III. Agency Response
After carefully considering ETA's petition to increase the GVWR
limit for electric-powered LSVs, we have decided to deny the petition.
There are two primary reasons for this decision. The first is that we
believe that vehicles over 3,000 pounds are capable of complying with
the full requirements of the FMVSSs. Secondly, in line with our policy
in establishing a GVWR limit for LSVs in the first place, we believe
that increasing the GVWR limit would encourage the use of LSVs in
circumstances where it could pose an unreasonable risk to safety. These
reasons are described at greater length below.
a. Rationale for 3,000 Pound GVWR
As stated above, the definition of LSVs originally did not contain
a maximum GVWR. The definition for an LSV established in that final
rule was:
A 4-wheeled motor vehicle, other than a truck, whose speed
attainable in 1.6 km (1 mile) is more than 32 kilometers per hour
(20 miles per hour) and not more than 40 kilometers per hour (25
miles per hour) on a paved level surface.
The logic behind this rulemaking was that these vehicles were so small
that they could not practicably meet the full regimen of FMVSSs
required of other motor vehicles.\2\ Trucks were excluded because in
all of the public hearings and docket submissions relating to LSVs and
their uses proponents described them as passenger vehicles. Also, there
were existing large, slow-moving work-related trucks, such as street
sweepers, that already met FMVSSs for their vehicle class that would
have become excluded from those FMVSSs had trucks not been excluded
from the definition of LSVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 62 FR 1077, January 8, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When reconsidering the LSV definition, NHTSA was presented with
arguments that small, work-related trucks would be used in the same
environments as passenger-carrying LSVs. The agency decided that this
was a desirable option, and modified the definition of LSVs
accordingly. A GVWR limitation was substituted for the ``other than a
truck'' portion of the definition for several reasons. The first was to
provide an objective means for delineating between the vehicles for
which the LSV requirements are appropriate (i.e., those vehicles that
are too small to meet the full FMVSS requirements) and those vehicles
that can be designed to meet the full set of FMVSSs. The second reason
was that the low GVWR limit prevents attempts
[[Page 55803]]
to circumvent FMVSSs for cars, trucks, and multipurpose passenger
vehicles by applying the LSV classification to vehicles types that are
able to meet the standards.\3\ These reasons are discussed in more
detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 70 FR 48316.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Limitation of LSVs to Appropriate Vehicles
In denying this petition to further increase the maximum GVWR for
LSVs, the agency believes it highly important to reiterate the
rationale for classifying vehicles as LSVs in the first place. In the
original rulemaking, we noted that several States, such as Florida and
California, had passed legislation permitting golf carts and NEVs to
use public roads in some areas. However, because NHTSA considered those
vehicles which traveled 20 mph or faster to be ``motor vehicles,'' they
could not be manufactured unless they met the FMVSSs for passenger
cars. Therefore, as we stated in the 1998 final rule, ``[t]his creates
a conflict with the state and local laws because compliance with the
full range of those standards is not feasible for these small
vehicles.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 63 FR 33194.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the heart of the rulemaking regarding LSVs is that they were too
small to meet the requirements of passenger cars, and would only be
used in controlled, low-speed environments, where the risk of collision
would be small. ETA's recommendation to increase the GVWR limits
conflict with NHTSA's rationale for establishing the GVWR limitation
with regard to this rationale. The contradiction is the fact that
vehicles with a GVWR of over 3,000 are simply not too small to meet the
full FMVSSs. In the NPRM discussing the rationale for a 2,500 pound
GVWR limit, the agency presented a list of the GVWRs of a variety of
fully FMVSS-compliant passenger cars and SUVs. This list is repeated
here (this relates to model year 2003): \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 68 FR 68321.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GVWR in
Vehicle Type pounds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honda Insight....................... Passenger car......... 2,212
Toyota Echo......................... Passenger car......... 3,010
Hyundai Accent...................... Passenger car......... 3,310
Chevrolet Tracker................... SUV................... 3,483
Honda Civic......................... Passenger car......... 3,485
Toyota Prius........................ Passenger car......... 3,615
Ford Focus.......................... Passenger car......... 3,620
Toyota RAV4......................... SUV................... 3,841
Jeep Wrangler....................... SUV................... 4,450
Ford Ranger......................... Extended cab pick-up.. 4,800
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 2,500-pound GVWR limit was selected because it was lighter than
all FMVSS-compliant passenger cars and SUVs, with the exception of the
Honda Insight. It should be noted that the 2,500-pound limit considers
the weight of the gasoline-powered Honda Insight, and then adds about
300 pounds to account for the additional weight of electric batteries
over fuel.\6\ As we stated above, the 2006 rule extended the limitation
to 3,000 pounds. This, it was noted, still means that the Honda Insight
was the only fully FMVSS-compliant passenger car to be lighter than the
heaviest LSV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 70 FR 48317.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, if ETA's suggestion that electric LSVs have a maximum GVWR
of 4,000 pounds, then they could be considerably heavier than many
passenger cars, and even some SUVs, even factoring in a substantial
allowance for the weight of the electric batteries. This would be
inconsistent with NHTSA's rationale to make LSVs subject to less
stringent safety requirements than passenger cars, in large part
because they are ``too small'' to meet those requirements.
A second reason why raising the GVWR for electric LSVs is contrary
to NHTSA's policy is that this would encourage the development of
heavier, more substantial LSVs. In its petition, ETA stated that the
current 3,000-pound GVWR limit limits the chassis to less than 1339
pounds.\7\ This, it claims, will result in a ``lightweight chassis''
that will ``not provide much occupant protection in the event of a
crash.'' ETA continues by saying that ``manufacturers should be
encouraged to increase chassis mass and, therefore, strength to ensure
proper occupant safety.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ This figure is derived from subtracting a 1,000-pound cargo
capacity and a 661-pound battery from the 3,000-pound maximum GVWR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 2003 final rule, in which NHTSA provided the rationale to
change to a GVWR-based definition of LSVs, we said:
We believe that, as LSVs become equipped with additional
amenities, such as air conditioning, solid doors, and batteries for
extended range, they lose the basic characteristics of a special
vehicle designed for transportation within a planned, limited
environment. Instead, these vehicles take-on the profile of a small,
traditional passenger car vehicle, and in some cases, may be
marketed as a small passenger car or as a substitute for a small
passenger car. Even with a 25 mph speed limitation, we are concerned
that LSVs that have characteristics and attributes of traditional
passenger cars will be more likely to be used outside of planned
communities and instead, more regularly mix with traffic.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 70 FR 48316.
ETA's rationale for increasing the weight of LSVs accomplishes the very
end that NHTSA sought to avoid by establishing the 2,500-pound, and
later 3,000-pound, GVWR limitation. As ETA correctly points out,
raising the maximum weight of electric LSVs would encourage the
development of larger, sturdier models. This would, in turn, likely
extend their use into areas beyond those that NHTSA intended LSVs to
go, namely, outside of controlled, low-speed environments. While NHTSA
has no desire to restrict the use of electric vehicles, as opposed to
gasoline-powered vehicles, on the majority of public roads, we believe
that the vehicles using those roadways should meet the full set of
FMVSS requirements.
ii. Importation of Foreign Vehicles as LSVs
A second argument put forth in ETA's petition for reconsideration
is that increasing the maximum GVWR for electric LSVs would allow the
importation of foreign electric vehicles without their having to
conform to the full FMVSS requirements. As ETA states, ``[t]hese
vehicles are appealing as conversions to LSVs as they offer
[[Page 55804]]
durable construction and the ability to carry heavier loads at lower
costs than a full-speed [vehicle] or purpose-designed LSV.'' While we
agree that acceding to ETA's request would have this effect, it is
again an effect we hope to avoid.
To begin, we note that foreign made on-road motor vehicles, that
are capable of high-speed use, are not eligible to be transformed into
LSVs via the adoption of a speed-limiting governor. In a June 28, 2000
letter of interpretation to Mr. Thomas E. Dahl on this issue, we stated
there are no circumstances under which the addition of a speed
governing device to a high-speed vehicle would make the vehicle meet
the definition of an LSV. After explaining that we established the LSV
class because the vehicles were too small to meet the full FMVSS
requirements, we stated that a common feature of this class appeared to
be that they were capable of a maximum speed of 25 mph as designed and
manufactured. This is still our interpretation of the regulation.
Furthermore, the agency has stated several times that one concern
we have regarding the LSV classification is that it could be used as a
mechanism to import foreign motor vehicles without first making them
conform to the FMVSSs. For example, in the 2005 final rule, we stated
that ``[t]he [2,500-pound] GVWR limit prevents attempts to circumvent
FMVSSs for cars, trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles by
applying the LSV classification to vehicle types that are able to meet
the [full FMVSS] standards.'' \9\ ETA's recommended 4,000-pound limit
would permit the result we intended to prevent, and we view that as a
reason to deny the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 70 FR 48316.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Technology-Neutral Regulation
ETA's final argument is that the current GVWR limitation provides
an advantage to gasoline-powered vehicles over electric vehicles. The
agency is aware that, with current technology, the batteries needed to
power an electric vehicle weigh substantially more than the fuel needed
to power an internal combustion engine. This was considered to some
extent in our original rulemaking establishing the 2,500-pound GVWR
limit in 2005, and considered extensively in our 2006 rule increasing
that limit to 3,000 pounds, a rule undertaken at the behest of two
electric LSV manufacturers.
In the petitions that led to the 2006 rulemaking, NHTSA was
presented with two differing solutions to this problem. The first,
presented by Dynasty Electric Car Corporation, recommended a 2,500-
pound GVWR restriction for internal combustion engine LSVs and a 2,800-
pound GVWR restriction for electric LSVs. The second, recommended by
GEM, requested that the GVWR limit be raised to 3,000 pounds for all
LSVs, as this would accommodate electric LSVs with a cargo-carrying
capacity of 1,000 pounds.
In the 2005 rule establishing the GVWR limitation, we discussed why
we were not establishing different GVWR limitations for electric and
gasoline-powered vehicles, despite the issue regarding the weight of
the batteries. We noted that each propulsion type has its own
advantages. While gasoline-powered vehicles are lighter, ``the fact
that electric LSVs are successful in the market indicates that any
advantage of the [internal combustion] vehicle due to greater load
capacity under our GVWR restriction will be overcome by other
attractions of the electric vehicle to consumers.'' \10\ ETA, perhaps
inadvertently, cites several of these advantages in its petition. These
include the high cost of gasoline, government mandates to reduce or
eliminate petroleum-fueled vehicles from fleets, and the environmental
benefits of electric vehicles. Therefore, we do not believe it is
necessary to increase the regulatory complexity by setting different
GVWR limitations based on propulsion method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 70 FR 48317.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, we believe that 3,000 pounds is a level at which electric
LSVs that perform cargo-carrying work are practicable to build. In the
2006 final rule, we quoted one of the petitioners, GEM, where it
stated:
All that GEM seeks in the U.S. market is a comparable ``level
playing field'' by allowing LSV trucks to weigh as much as 3000
pounds GVWR, which would accommodate the electric batteries and an
appropriate payload for LSV trucks.
We note that GEM currently produces a cargo-carrying electric LSV with
a GVWR of 3,000 pounds or less. We noted on GEM's Web site the GEM eL
XD, which has a GVWR of 3,000 pounds, a payload capacity of 1,450
pounds, a top speed of 25 mph, and a range of up to 40 miles.\11\ This
example illustrates that the current GVWR limit permits the development
of cargo-carrying, electric LSVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See GEM Web site, available at https://www.gemcar.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, we are denying ETA's petition to
increase the maximum allowable GVWR to 4,000 pounds for electric LSVs.
Furthermore, because we are not increasing the maximum allowable GVWR,
we are denying ETA's recommendation to establish brake requirements and
tire weight rating requirements in FMVSS No. 500.
Issued on: September 19, 2008.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E8-22736 Filed 9-25-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
