ID: aiam4017

Dear Mr. Scribner: This responds to your recent letter seeking an interpretation o Standard No. 109, *New Pneumatic Tires--Passenger Cars* (49 CFR S571.109). Specifically, you were interested in learning whether that standard applies to tires for use on 'antique and classic automobiles.' You stated that your firm deals in tires which are authentic replacement tires for antique and classic cars, and that none of those tires has ever been marked with a DOT number. Standard No. 109 requires that all new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948 be marked with DOT numbers, among other things, and there is no exception to this requirement for tires designed for 'classic' cars.; It is unclear when you refer to a 'DOT number' whether you ar referring to just the tire identification number, which is required to appear on all new tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948 by 49 CFR Part 574, *Tire Identification and Recordkeeping*, or that identification number together with the symbol 'DOT.' The DOT symbol is a certification by the tire manufacturer that the tire complies with all the requirements of Standard No. 109. I have enclosed copies of both Standard No. 109 and Part 574 for your information.; In any event, Standard No. 109 applies to *all* new pneumatic tires fo use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948. Section S4.3.1 of the standard requires the DOT symbol to be permanently marked on the tire, while section S4.3.2 requires the tire identification number assigned to a manufacturer in accordance with Part 574 to be permanently marked on the tire. Standard No. 109 contains no provisions making an exception to these requirements.; Accordingly, if the antique and classic cars to which you refer wer manufactured in or before 1948, the tires are not subject to Standard No. 109 or Part 574. Sale of such tires would not violate any of this agency's requirements.; If, however, the tires are designed for use on cars manufactured afte 1948, the tires must comply with all requirements of Standard No. 109, including the requirements to have a DOT symbol and a tire identification number marked permanently on the sidewall. If you sell tires which are subject to, but do not comply with, the requirements of Standard No. 109, you would violate section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). Section 109 of that Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a maximum civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of section 108, and this agency would consider each sale of a noncomplying tire to be a separate violation.; If you need any further information on this subject, please contac Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 12669.ztv

The Honorable Bill Baker
U.S. House of Representatives
1801 N. California Boulevard
Suite 103
Walnut Creek, CA 94956

Dear Mr. Baker:

I am replying to your letter of October 22, 1996, addressed to Marilynne Jacobs, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, on behalf of your constituent, Duane Doyle of San Leandro. You have asked for our views on his letter to you of October 17, 1996, a copy of which you enclosed.

Mr. Doyle bought a 1996 Rover Mini Cooper in Switzerland, and when he attempted to import it, he was informed by the U.S. Customs Service at the Port of Oakland that the vehicle would have to be brought into compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which this agency (NHTSA) administers, as well as Federal emissions requirements that are administered by the Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Doyle offered to retrofit the car with a roll bar and racing safety harness and was told by this agency that this was insufficient to fulfil the requirements of this agency. He then offered to store the car on his property and not drive it on the public roads, and was informed that this, also, was not acceptable. He now seeks to import it under 49 U.S.C. 30112(b), which he interprets as follows: "the prohibitions on importing noncomplying motor vehicles and equipment do not apply to a person that had no reason to know, despite exercising reasonable care that a motor vehicle did not comply with applicable motor vehicle safety standards." The tone of his letter indicates that he feels he is being singled out unfairly by NHTSA.

Although the legal background may have been discussed in other correspondence between Mr. Doyle and this agency, this is the first time that the Office of Chief Counsel has been afforded an opportunity to discuss this matter. There are several provisions of law applicable to Mr. Doyle's situation. First, there has been a prohibition in effect for almost 29 years, since January 1, 1968 (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A), recodified as 49 U.S.C. 30112(a)), against importing motor vehicles into the United States unless they conform, or are brought into conformance, with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Furthermore, under the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988 (codified as 49 U.S.C. 30141 et seq.), since January 31, 1990, for almost 7 years it has not been possible to import a noncomplying motor vehicle unless this agency has determined that the vehicle is capable of being converted to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The agency has not made such a determination with respect to the 1996 Rover Mini Cooper.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30142, Mr. Doyle may import the Mini Cooper after demonstrating that he has a contract with a "registered importer" to bring the Mini Cooper into full compliance with the Federal safety standards, and that the agency has made a determination under section 30141(a)(1) (B) that "the safety features of the vehicle comply with or are capable of being altered to comply with those standards based on destructive test information or other evidence [NHTSA] decides is adequate." NHTSA makes the determination after the public has commented upon an application filed by the "registered importer", which is an entity that NHTSA has recognized as capable of performing standards compliance work. If Mr. Doyle is interested in pursuing this avenue of approach, the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance will provide him, upon his request, with a list of "registered importers" in his area. This is the procedure that must be followed by persons seeking permanent importation of vehicles for their own use. The fact that the Mini meets the safety standards of other countries is an argument that may be made in the application.

The modifications which Mr. Doyle offered to make, while addressing some aspects of occupant protection, were insufficient to demonstrate that the Mini would comply afterwards with all the safety standards that apply to it. We note also Mr. Doyle's offer to restrict the Mini's use to private property. The problem with this offer is that it is not binding on a subsequent purchaser of the car, and we have no authority to require a person other than the importer to bring a car into compliance. Thus, an importer must bring into compliance a motor vehicle that was originally manufactured for on-road use even if (s)he intends to use it on private property.

As noted above, Mr. Doyle seeks an exemption based upon his interpretation of Section. 30112(b). Section 30112(a) contains the basic prohibition against, among other things, importing a motor vehicle unless it complies with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and bears the manufacturer's certification of compliance. Section 30112(b) sets forth nine circumstances in which section 30112(a) does not apply, that is to say, under which a violation will be considered not to have occurred (and for which a civil penalty may not be imposed). One of these exceptions is if a person can establish "that the person had no reason to know, despite exercising reasonable care, that a motor vehicle . . . does not comply with applicable [U.S. Federal] motor vehicle safety standards. . . ."

Mr. Doyle has not violated Section 30112(a). He has not completed importation of the Mini into the United States; indeed, he was prevented from doing so by the U.S. Customs Service because it did not comply with the standards. Since he has not imported a noncomplying vehicle, he has not violated Section 30112(a) and therefore Section 30112(b)(2) does not apply. He cannot now import the Mini using Section 30112(b)(2) as a defense because he now knows that the Mini fails to comply. The exception that applies to Mr. Doyle is that set out by Section 30112(b)(5) -- "a motor vehicle imported for personal use by an individual who receives an exemption under section 30142 of this title", that is, importation of the Mini through the auspices of a "registered importer" who will conform the vehicle.

Taylor Vinson of this Office will be pleased to answer such further questions as may occur (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:591

d:11/15/96

ID: kill.ztv

Mr. Bill Cox
Monte Carlo Minis
Box 369
Earl, NC 28038

Dear Mr. Cox:

We are replying further to your petition for temporary exemption of the Mini passenger car from several Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I am sorry that it has taken some time to get back to you since my letter of November 4, 1996.

After considerable discussion within the agency, I am sorry to tell you that we have concluded that we cannot consider you a "manufacturer" within the meaning of the temporary exemption hardship regulations. This means that we cannot consider your petition.

As we understand the facts from the correspondence we have received from you since last summer, Monte Carlo Minis was established at the beginning of 1996, with you as the sole owner, for the purpose of importing and selling Rover Mini passenger cars that are not manufactured to conform to any motor vehicle regulations of the United States, including the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Because Monte Carlo had neither income or expenses, you were unable to file with your petition any information on the financial status of the company. The manufacturer of the car is not willing to sell you any vehicles for your enterprise, or to cooperate with you by furnishing information that would assist you in determining the extent to which the Mini might or might not meet U.S. requirements. You propose to buy the cars from a Mini dealer in Belgium. You are willing to remove all items of motor vehicle equipment that do not meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards and to replace them with conforming parts. You have received an estimate from a Registered Importer of the expense to conform the noncomplying Minis. You state that this Registered Importer, J&K Imports, located in Maryland, will be the company that actually conforms the vehicles to those standards for which no exemption has been granted, and installs propane engines to meet EPA requirements.

In the 25 years that the exemption authority has been in effect, with the exception of Isis Imports and Cantab Ltd., the agency has accepted temporary exemption petitions based upon hardship only from the actual manufacturer of the motor vehicle for which exemption was sought. We have not accepted petitions from importers who have no legal or commercial relationship to the manufacturer. An exception was made for Isis and Cantab on the basis that they had been Morgan dealers, and were receiving Morgan cars without engines, completing their manufacture by installing U.S. Ford engines converted to propane. In general, these companies petitioned for exemption from only one or two of the safety standards, and certfied compliance with the rest partially on the basis of information furnished them by the British manufacturer. Both Isis and Cantab's petitions spoke of the cooperation shown by Morgan in assisting their attempts to furnish air bags and other safety equipment.

In contrast, you have no legal or commercial relationship to Rover. In fact, Rover has specifically advised you that it will not furnish you with cars, nor will it provide information as to the compliance status of the British Mini with respect to the U.S. standards, let alone compliance of a Mini manufactured for the Dutch market which you propose to import. Further, under our laws, a manufacturer of a motor vehicle is required to notify owners and remedy any safety related defect or noncompliance with a standard that occurs in its product. Isis and Cantab were existing enterprises with a demonstrated financial record. Whether Monte Carlo Minis has the financial resources necessary to initiate and complete a notification and remedy campaign cannot be determined on the basis of your representation that the company has no balance sheet or income statement. Even if such resources exist, the record does not provide any assurance that Rover would cooperate in furnishing you replacement parts so that a safety related defect or noncompliance could be corrected within a reasonable time.

We have reached this conclusion with regret because we appreciate your willingness to comply with Federal regulations while bringing to our attention those who may not be so publicly spirited. We have informed our enforcement staff of the other companies that may be selling Minis so that they may consider what action is appropriate under the circumstances.

Finally, in your FAX of March 13, 1997, you have asked whether you can upgrade to 12 inch tires and rims and add disc brakes to the pre-1973 Minis that you import, reporting that Customs officials in Port Elizabeth, New York, consider that Minis so equiped were manufactured in 1984 or later. Because vehicles more than 25 years old are exempt from compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, you are free to make these modifications without violating our regulations.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:555
d:3/24/97

ID: aiam4430

Dear Mr. Ripley: This is a response to your letter asking this agenc to review three product catalogs you submitted with your letter, and tell you whether your company is required to furnish information pursuant to 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. Based on the information you supplied with your letter, your company is required to file information under Part 566 for the warning devices shown in one of the catalogs, but not for any of the other items shown in the three catalogs. As specified in the Application section of Part 566 (/566.3), Part 566 applies to (1) all manufacturers of motor vehicles and (2) manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, other than tires, to which a safety standard applies. The only item advertised in the three catalogs that is motor vehicle equipment to which a safety standard applies is the 'Safety Reflector Kit' shown on page 6 of the catalog entitled 'weather guard For Full-Size and Mini Vans.' These devices are subject to Standard 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR /571.125). Accordingly, your company, as the manufacturer of these devices, must furnish the information specified in /566.5 within the time period specified in /566.6. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan F. Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam2260

Dear Mr. Lancaster: This is in response to your March 17, 1976, letter concerning reportin forms for the mini motor homes that you contemplate building.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards to which motor vehicles must conform. In addition, the agency requires that the manufacturer certify that the vehicles as completed comply with applicable safety standards. A pamphlet summarizing the Federal motor vehicle safety standards is enclosed, along with a copy of the regulations governing vehicle certification. The safety standards themselves are set forth in their entirety in Part 571 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.; The NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects and noncompliance with safety standards in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. If the agency or the manufacturer determines that a safety-related defect or noncompliance exists, the manufacturer is obligated to notify the vehicle owners and remedy the problem without charge. A copy of the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, which deal with the responsibilities of manufacturers for safety-related defects and noncompliances in their motor vehicles or items of vehicle equipment (15 U.S.C. SS 1411-1420) is also enclosed. Further, 49 CFR Part 573, *Defect Reports*, requires the submission to the NHTSA of information reports concerning defects. A copy of this regulation is enclosed. No particular reporting form is required.; In addition, a new manufacturer of motor vehicles is required by 49 CF Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification*, to submit certain information to the NHTSA not more than 30 days after he begins manufacture. A copy of this regulation is also enclosed.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4577

Dear Senator Exon: Thank you for your letter of February 9, 1989, i which you inquired about the status of a letter to this office from Mr. Ron Moxham, one of your constituents. I apologize for the delay in responding to Mr. Moxham. In his inquiry, Mr. Moxham asked about the applicability of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) regulations to an add-on-trunk for mini vans, pickup trucks, Blazers, and other vehicles. He described his product as a detachable box that could be attached to the liftgate, bumper, or frame at the rear of a vehicle and extend 16 to 20 inches beyond the bumper. Your constituent asked whether there are any regulations applicable to this product, especially in relation to the vehicle's tail lights and other lighting components. He also asked whether his product would be required to have its own separate lighting equipment and its own separate bumper. By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the statutes administered by NHTSA, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in Mr. Moxham's letter. NHTSA does not have any specific regulations covering an add-on trunk. However, the addition of such a device could affect a vehicle's compliance with various safety standards. For example, an add-on trunk could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, by obscuring the vehicle's rear lights from some angles of view. This adverse effect could be offset by the addition of supplementary lighting devices to the trunk. See S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108. (Copy enclosed.) If an add-on trunk is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards. If such a device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle may have certification responsibilities as an 'alterer' under 49 CFR Part 567.7. This would occur if the installation of the add-on trunk either altered the vehicle's stated weight ratings or constituted the installation of something that is not a 'readily attachable' component. To ascertain whether the installation involves readily attachable components such factors as the intricacy of installation, and the need for special expertise must be taken into consideration. More information regarding the method of installation is necessary before we could determine whether the installation of the add-on trunk was the installation of a readily attachable component. A person who modifies a vehicle prior to its first sale is also affected by other Federal requirements, whether or not that person is considered an 'alterer.' Section 108(a)(l)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act generally provides that no person may 'manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States,' any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. In addition, under section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. If an add-on trunk is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would be subject to the 'render inoperative' requirement cited above. Thus, the installer would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. I note that in a letter dated September 25, l987, NHTSA indicated that a person who installs a lift platform on the rear of a car, thereby blocking a lamp required by Standard No. 108, could avoid violating the prohibition against rendering inoperative by installing an auxiliary lamp meeting the standard's photometric requirements. Since that situation may have similarities to the one faced by Mr. Moxham, I am enclosing a copy of the letter. Mr. Moxham did not specifically indicate whether his product would be sold for passenger cars. NHTSA has a bumper standard which sets forth requirements for the impact resistance of passenger cars in low speed front and rear collisions. The addition of an add-on trunk could affect a passenger car's compliance with the bumper standard. Enclosed is an information sheet which identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. Mr. Moxham should also be aware that state laws may apply to his device. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures cc: Washington Office /;

ID: 21359.ztv

Mr. Wayne L. Kruse
Murray, Inc.
P.O. Box 268
Brentwood, TN 37024-0268

Dear Mr. Kruse:

Thank you for your letter of February 29, 2000, informing us that you "are evaluating a product opportunity." You ask how we would classify this product under our regulations and "if it needs to comply with any FMVSS, CPSC or other Federal standards."

You identify your company as a "manufacturer of outdoor power equipment and recreational products." You identify the product in question as "an electric leisure mini scooter." The scooter "folds to compact size," and you envision it being bought "by RV campers and boat owners and used at places where passenger car use is not feasible." You also believe that "in some instances, it may be used in residential areas where traffic flow is restricted or controlled." The scooter is powered by an electric motor with "less than 2HP output," has a maximum speed of 15 mph, a range of 15 miles, and weighs 90 pounds.

The question we must answer is whether the electric leisure mini scooter is a "motor vehicle." If it is a "motor vehicle," it must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). For purposes of compliance with the FMVSS, a motor vehicle is one that is "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways" (49 U.S.C. 30101(a)(6)). Because you speak in terms of "evaluating a product opportunity," and printed literature already exists on the scooter, we surmise that Murray is not the manufacturer of the scooter but would be a dealer, in the sense that it would be purchasing the scooters for resale to its customers (the photocopy of the literature you enclosed contains no manufacturer name). However, it is the manufacturer's intended primary use that we must consider, and not the dealer's.

The product literature depicts the scooter on what appears to be a roadway in a wooded area. Further, you have stated that it may be used in residential areas subject to restricted or controlled traffic flow. We believe that the scooter is indistinguishable from a moped, which is an on- road vehicle that we have long interpreted to be a motor vehicle. The seated rider on the scooter appears to other traffic to be riding a moped. We also note that the low ground clearance of the central platform appears poorly suited to off-road use. These are sufficient indicia for us to conclude that the scooter has been manufactured primarily for on-road use.

For purposes of compliance with the FMVSS, a two or three-wheeled motor vehicle (the product literature also shows a three-wheeled scooter) is defined as a "motorcycle" and is required to comply with the FMVSS that apply to this vehicle type. Some of the motorcycle standards specify lesser performance requirements for "motor driven cycles." These are motorcycles with engines of 5 HP or less. Because the scooter has a motor of not more than 2 HP, it is eligible to meet the requirements that have been modified for motor driven cycles.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30112 and 30115, in addition to assuring that its product complies with all applicable FMVSS, a motor vehicle manufacturer must also affix a certification label to each vehicle. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), Murray may not offer for sale, or sell, the electric leisure mini scooter unless the manufacturer has certified its compliance.

The product may also be required to comply with emission regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency. We are not conversant with their requirements for small vehicles such as the scooter.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-355-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.5/10/00

ID: nht88-1.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/15/88

FROM: ALICE COLLINS

TO: ERIKA Z JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/01/88 TO ALICE COLLINS, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, PART 571.3

TEXT: Dear Ms Jones,

I am behind, to say the least, in writing you.

I am a parent of three children. Two of school age. Plus I do a lot of volunteer work for two school. Part of my volunteer work is driving for field Trips.

I checked out my new vehicle for over 1 year before buying. I chose a 1986 (new) Ply. Voyger mini-van and then in the 1986-87 school year your dept. decided they were unsafe. But in your letter to Mr. Larry H McEntire Administrator, School Transport ation - Fl. Dept. of Education, Dated Aug 7, 1986.

2 I noted that Ply. Voyger was not listed. And the classification of M.P.C. was used on all mini vans, are not these classification made for several reason - and $ having one big reason for foreign vehicle.

Anyway, I am sure you have had many letter, phone calls etc in the past year over parent using vans to transport children for school trips So please review the papers enclose, I feel you see that the Ply. Voyger meet more requirements of a passenger c ar than a truck.

Please review this Mini Van. I feel my children and family are safe in my voyger than a car. No one wants to have an accident. And even the school buses that have been in accident lately have had had injurys - crush tops & sides. Where are the seat Belts?

3

I feel your Department is closing the doors to a better answers to transport our children on short field trips.

You know the driver counts for more than just the kind of vehicle. The driver should be $99[Illegible Word]

Our children are missing out on alot of short educational trips. The schools can not afford to use schools buses for the short trips.

Will Amy Ukey please read enclosed papers and let me know if there is any way to change the Department decision on the Ply. Voyger Mini-Van.

Thank you

Do you have a toll free Phone Number?

(Attachments omitted.)

ID: 22220.ztv

Mr. Bernard Geenen
The Trade Commissioner for Wallonia
Consulate General of Belgium
333 North Michigan Avenue
Suite 2000
Chicago, IL 60601





Dear Mr. Geenen:

This is in reply to your letter of September 21, 2000, to Taylor Vinson, which was received in this office on October 11, 2000.

With reference to a vehicle "to be used on private roads (amusement parks, resort, airports)," you have asked for a copy of "the official D.O.T. text(s) stating that such 'off road or non-road' vehicles are not subject to D.O. T. requirements." The vehicle is a "mini train," i.e., a tractor equipped with a Volkswagen engine pulling a trailer that carries 20 or more passengers.

We are pleased to provide you with the information you seek. Under our basic vehicle safety statute, we regulate "motor vehicles." A "motor vehicle" is defined, in pertinent part, as a vehicle that is driven or drawn by mechanical power and "manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways" (Title 49, United States Code, Section 30102(a)(6)). Thus, it follows that we do not regulate a vehicle if it is not manufactured primarily for use on the public roads.

The determination of whether a vehicle is a "motor vehicle" is initially that of its manufacturer. We accept the manufacturer's determination unless that decision is clearly erroneous. We do not regard roadways in resorts, airports, and amusement parks as public roads. Therefore, if the manufacturer of the mini train you describe manufactures and sells it primarily for use in amusement parks, resorts, or airports, we would not regard it as a "motor vehicle" subject to D.O.T.'s jurisdiction and requirements. Of course, we might have to reconsider that decision if we became aware that mini trains were in fact being operated often on the public roads.

If you have further questions, you may telephone Taylor Vinson again (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.11/14/00

ID: nht87-1.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Leon Pauksta -- Traffic Manager, Nichimen America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Leon Pauksta Traffic Manager Nichimen America, Inc. 225 North Michigan Avenue Suite 2322 Chicago, IL 60601-5983

This responds to your February 20 and March 18, 1987 letters requesting guidance on the information which you should provide us so that we can issue an opinion whether a particular vehicle is considered to be a motor vehicle. You explained that this requ est was made with reference to a mini pickup truck your company is considering importing from Taiwan, and that the truck would be used as "off-the-road utility conveyances." have set forth below the factors this agency considers in making determinations of whether a particular vehicle is a motor vehicle.

Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

We have interpreted this language as follows. On the one hand, vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, are not motor vehicles. In additi on, vehicles intended and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel.

On the other hand, vehicles which use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, jeep-type utility vehicles are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road o peration. NHTSA has interpreted the definition of "motor vehicle" to include vehicles whose on-road use is substantial, even though use on the public roads is not the vehicles' greatest intended use. Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of the vehicle's owners, NHTSA has held that the vehicle is a "motor vehicle". This finding was made in the case of dune buggies and regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent rega rding the terrain on which the vehicles were to be operated.

Between these fairly clear areas are the cases the agency has previously characterized as "borderline" cases. These cases typically involve vehicles that have off-road operating capability, but also have on-road operating capability, and about which ther e is little or no evidence about the extent of the vehicle's on-road use. In previous letters of interpretation, this agency has set forth some of the factors it considers to determine whether borderline case vehicles should be classified as motor vehicl es. These factors include:

1. Whether States or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use;

2. Whether the vehicle is or will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it is or will be advertised exclusively for off-road use;

3. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers assist or will assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents.

4. Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are indisputably classified as motor vehicles; and

5. Whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on public roads.

If you wish to submit information relevant to the factors discussed above, we would be pleased to consider it and offer you an opinion regarding your vehicle.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

March 18, 1987

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 - 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn.: Chief Counsel

SUBJECT: Application for Ruling As to Whether a Motor Vehicle is For Primary Use on Public Thoroughfares.

Dear Counsel:

Attached is a copy of our February 20th inquiry. Although it was sent to you almost one month ago we have not received a reply from you.

Because this subject is an active business project for us which is being researched, we do require instructions from your office.

Could you please send instructions as to what kind of information we are required to submit to your office in order to obtain a ruling.

Yours very truly,

NICHIMEN AMERICA INC.

Leon Pauksta, Traffic Manager

cc: Mr. Hattori

February 20, 1987

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 - 7th Street. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn.: Chief Counsel

SUBJECT: Application for Ruling As to Whether a Motor Vehicle is Considered for Primary Use on Public Thoroughfares.

Dear Counsel:

We have been researching the feasibility of importing mini pickup-truck type motor vehicles from Taiwan for use in the U.S. as off-the-road ultility conveyances.

Would you kindly provide instructions as to what kind of information we must submit to your office and any formal application format we should use. It would also be helpful if you could give an estimated time-frame such ruling procedure would involve.

Your prompt response and assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Yours very truly,

NICHIMAN AMERICA, INC.

Leon Pauksta. Traffic Manager

cc: Mr. Hattori