ID: 3237o

Mr. T. J. Brown
General Manager, Product Services
Mohawk Tire Company
l500 Indiana Avenue
P.O. Box 3250
Salem, Virginia 24l53

Dear Mr. Brown:

This responds to your letter requesting an opinion concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l09, New Pneumatic Tires. According to your letter, you are considering purchasing for resale a group of metric size tires from a foreign manufacturer. The maximum load and maximum pressures molded on the sidewalls of the tires are indicated in kilograms and kilopascals only, without any indication of the maximum pounds and PSI pressure. The actual stamping on the tires is as follows:

l65SRl5 Load Range B Maximum Load 530kgs - Maximum Pressure 230 KPA l85SRl4 Load Range B Maximum Load 600kgs - Maximum Pressure 230 KPA l75SRl4 Load Range B Maximum Load 560kgs - Maximum Pressure 230 KPA l65SRl3 Load Range B Maximum Load 475kgs - Maximum Pressure 230 KPA l55SRl3 Load Range B Maximum Load 420kgs - Maximum Pressure 220 KPA

You stated that you question whether the omission of the load designation and pressure in pounds prohibits the tires from being sold in the United States and requested our opinion on the matter. As discussed below, it is our opinion that tires without the maximum load and maximum pressures molded on the sidewalls in English units do not meet the requirements of Standard No. l09 and therefore cannot be imported into the United States for use on passenger cars.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

All tires imported into the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l09. The standard specifies performance requirements (strength, endurance, high speed, and resistance to bead unseating), marking requirements (treadwear indicators and labeling information), and tire and rim matching information requirements which must be satisfied by each tire sold in the United States.

Section S4.2.l(b) of Standard No. l09 requires that the maximum permissible inflation pressure of each tire "shall be either 32, 36, 40 or 60 psi, or 240, 280, 300 or 340 kPa." Thus, no value other than those listed may be used for the maximum permissible inflation pressure of a passenger car tire. Sections S4.3(b) and (c) of the standard specify that each tire shall have permanently molded onto the sidewalls the maximum permissible inflation pressure and the maximum load rating for the tire.

Section S4.2.l(b) originally listed only three permissible maximum inflation pressures, all in English units (32, 36 and 40 psi). The agency interpreted sections S4.3(b) and (c) to require that the maximum permissible inflation pressure and maximum load rating be in English units, since this is the system of measurement which will be used and understood by most consumers.

The first permissible metric maximum inflation pressures, 240 and 280 kPa, were added to Standard No. l09 in l977. 42 FR 12869, March 7, l977. In permitting metric-series tires, the agency established a requirement that the metric unit inflation pressure and load rating be supplemented by English system equivalents on the tire sidewall. That requirement, set forth in section S4.3.4, now reads as follows:

S4.3.4 If the maximum inflation pressure of a tire is 240, 280, 300 or 340 kPa, then:

(a) Each marking of that inflation pressure pursuant to S4.3(b) shall be followed in parenthesis by the equivalent inflation pressure in psi, rounded to the next whole number; and

(b) Each marking of the tire's maximum load rating pursuant to S4.3(b) shall be followed in parenthesis by the equivalent load rating in pounds, rounded to the nearest whole number.

Thus, each tire must have a maximum inflation pressure of either 32 psi, 36 psi, 40 psi, 60 psi, 240 kPa, 280 kPa, 300 or 340 kPa. If the maximum inflation pressure is 32 psi, 36 psi, 40 psi, or 60 psi, the maximum permissible inflation pressure and maximum load rating provided pursuant to sections S4.3(b) and (c) must be in English units. I would note that so long as the information appears in English units, there is no reason that it cannot also be expressed in equivalent metric units, if the presentation of the additional information does not cause confusion about the required information. If the maximum permissible inflation pressure is 240 kPa, 280 kPa, 300 or 340 kPa, the maximum permissible inflation pressure in kPa provided pursuant to section S4.3(b) must be followed in parenthesis by the equivalent inflation pressure in psi, rounded to the next higher whole number, and the maximum load rating provided pursuant to section S4.3(c) in kilograms must be followed in parenthesis by the equivalent load rating in pounds, rounded to the nearest whole number.

Since the tires you are considering purchasing do not have the maximum load and maximum pressures molded on the sidewalls in English units, they do not meet the requirements of Standard No. l09 and may not be imported into the United States for use on passenger cars. I have also enclosed for your information a copy of a December l2, l985, letter, addressed to Mutual Trading Corporation, which provides a general discussion of issues related to the importation and sale of tires in the United Sates.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:109 d:ll/23/88

ID: 3237yy

Mr. William J. Lewandoski
National Accounts Manager
Wheels/RV Products
Kelsey Parts Business
38481 Huron River Drive
Romulus, MI 48174

Dear Mr. Lewandoski:

This responds to your letter of July 9, l99l, to Robert Hellmuth of this agency, regarding an apparent conflict between an interpretation furnished you by this Office on May 23 of this year, and a Memorandum of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) dated May 30, 1991. The subject is whether the Tekonsha Voyager and Commander electronic brake controls ("the Brake Control") are permitted under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The Brake Control incorporates a "manual override" slide bar that activates the trailer brakes without a corresponding activation of the trailer stop lamps. On May 23, we responded to your question whether activation of "the trailer brakes and non-activation of the tow vehicle/trailer stop lamps comply" with Standard No. 108. We informed you that Standard No. l08 does not so permit, and that, because the Brake Control "applies the service brakes to diminish vehicle speed," the stop lamps are required by Standard No. 108 to be activated.

However, on May 30, CHP issued Management Memorandum No. 91-80 stating that this agency had issued a ruling that the Brake Control was "legal" under the preemption authority of l5 U.S.C. 1392(d), and that CHP personnel should consider the device to be in compliance with State requirements. You have asked for a clarification of the apparent conflict between our May 23, 1991 interpretation and the CHP memorandum.

The Patrol informs us that its Memorandum was based upon an interpretation that this office furnished on September 10, l990, to Lawrence F. Henneberger. Describing the Tekonsha Commander as a device which would allow the driver of a tractor-trailer combination "to use the hand control to override the trailer brakes in an emergency mode to control swaying," Mr. Henneberger had stated last year that California had taken the position that the vehicle's stop lamps must be activated when the Brake Control is used, "even though the service brakes are not applied at the time." It appeared to us from Mr. Henneberger's statements that the purpose of the Brake Control was "to control trailer sway and not 'to stop or diminish speed by braking.'" The basis for California's position was its interpretation of Section 24603(f) of the California Vehicle Code which states, in pertinent part, that stoplamps shall be activated upon application of the hand control head for electric brakes. We responded to Mr. Henneberger in our September 1990 letter that the California requirement conflicted with the requirement in Standard No. l08 that stop lamps be activated upon application of the service brakes, and that therefore, under the preemption clause of l5 U.S.C. 1392(d), Section 24603(f) was preempted "to the extent that it may be read as requiring stop lamps to be activated on motor vehicles equipped with the Commander Electronic Brake Control, when the Control is hand activated in an emergency mode to provide sway control."

We have reviewed the interpretations of September 10, 1990, and May 23, l991, as you have requested, and we have concluded that our interpretation letter to Mr. Henneberger was in error. Although Mr. Henneberger informed us that the Brake Control "does not involve application of the vehicle's service brakes" (Henneberger letter, June 22, l990, page 2; there are also three similar representations on page 4), the Tekonsha product literature that you supplied us clearly states that "The Voyager will not apply the trailer brakes unless the manual override slide bar is applied." (Item 5 under "Important Facts to Remember"), demonstrating that application of the Brake Control results in application of the trailer's service brakes. We have talked with Sergeant Cox of the California Highway Patrol about the operation of the Brake Control. We understand that operation of the Brake Control sends an electric impulse to the trailer brakes without going through the main tractor/trailer brake actuation system. The activation of the trailer brakes without a simultaneous activation of the tractor brakes allows the tractor to proceed with undiminished speed in order to take the slack out of the connector by increasing the distance between it and the trailer, which has slowed due to the activity of the electronic brake control, and thereby reduce the sway of the trailer.

This information about the Brake Control is the basis for our reconsideration of the interpretation of September 10, 1990. Although use of the Brake Control does not involve application of the "vehicle's service brakes" through the service brake control, it nevertheless does "apply the trailer brakes" as that phrase is used by Tekonsha in its product literature. Although the immediate intent of the driver may be to control sway, that intent is realized by creating a differential in speeds between towing and towed vehicles. That differential is created, not by increasing the speed of the towing vehicle, but by diminishing the speed of the towed vehicle through braking. As we noted in the September l0 letter, a stop lamp is defined in part as a lamp that indicates the intent of the driver to diminish speed by braking. We therefore find that Standard No. l08 and 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) do not preempt Section 24603(f) of the California Vehicle Code. We confirm our interpretation of May 23, that installation of the Tekonsha systems, under the conditions and by the persons therein described, appear to violate Standard No. 108 and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Device.

Our letters to both you and Mr. Henneberger may have left the impression that operation of the Brake Control on the brakes of the towed vehicle also requires activation of the stop lamps of the towing vehicle. Sgt. Cox has clarified that the Brake Control activates only the brakes of the towed vehicle, not the towing one. Consequently, Standard No. l08 would not require activation of the towing vehicle's stop lamps when the Brake Control alone is used to apply the brakes of the towed vehicle to diminish sway.

A copy of this letter is being provided the Department of California Highway Patrol, and Lawrence Henneberger, attorney for Tekonsha.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

cc: Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq. Sgt. Larry Cox, CHP

/ref:l08#VSA d:ll/22/9l

ID: 3238o

Mr. Garry Gallagher
Vice President
Metzeler Motorcycle Tire
4520 107th SW
Everett, WA 98204

Dear Mr. Gallagher:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR /571.119). More specifically, you asked whether the letter "B" must appear as part of the size designation of a motorcycle tire if that tire is of bias belted construction. The answer to your question is no.

As you noted in your letter, section S6.5 of Standard No. 119 sets forth the marking requirements for tires used on motor vehicles other than passenger cars, including tires for use on motorcycles. Subsection S6.5(c) states that each such tire shall be marked with "The tire size designation as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1." Section S5.1, in turn, specifies tire and rim matching information that must be provided to the public. Generally speaking, the size designation of a tire shows only the physical dimensions of that tire, not necessarily its construction. Thus, the common meaning of the term "size designation" does not necessarily include an indication of the tire's construction type. Further, no provision of Standard No. 119 requires a tire's size designation to indicate the tire's construction type. The only reference in section S6.5 of Standard No. 119 to a tire's construction type is in subsection S6.5(i), which requires the word "radial" to appear on the tire's sidewall if the tire is of radial construction. Therefore, in response to your question, Standard No. 119 does not require the letter "B" to be included in the size designation of bias belted motorcycle tires.

You noted that your company sometimes adds the letter "B" to the size designation of these tires as an internal code. NHTSA has long said that manufacturers are free to include additional information on the sidewall of their tires, provided that the additional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat the purpose of the required information. In this case, the addition of the letter "B" to the size designation would not appear to confuse or obscure the meaning of the size designation. Hence, there would be no apparent violation of Standard No. 119 by including the letter "B" in the size designation of bias belted motorcycle tires.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:119 d:l2/l/88

ID: 3238yy

Mr. Darrell E. Lischynski, P.Eng.
Project Manager, Energy and Processing
Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute
P.O. Box 1150
Humboldt, Saskatchewan S0K 2A0
Canada

Dear Mr. Lischynski:

This responds to your letter of October 3, 1991 concerning Calmar Industries' Seat Lift Kit for Ford Supercab trucks. As described by you, the "Seat Lift Kit is an attachment to raise the rear bench seat in Ford Supercab trucks. The kit does not alter the factory seat, and uses the factory seat belts. However, the seat mounts are changed, and an extension is provided to raise the seat belt attachment point." You asked which safety standards this kit must meet.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued one safety standard that applies to seats, Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, and the following safety standards that apply to safety belts: Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. All safety belts sold in the United States must be certified as complying with Standard No. 209, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as a replacement part. However, since you indicate that the kit uses the factory-installed safety belts, it does not appear that you need to be concerned with this standard.

Since Standard No. 207, Standard No. 208 and Standard No. 210 apply only to new vehicles, they are called vehicle standards. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act specifies that vehicles must conform with all applicable safety standards up until the first purchase for purposes other than resale. Therefore, if the seat lift kit is installed in a truck before its sale to its first purchaser, the vehicle with the lift kit installed must conform to these standards.

After the first purchase, the vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform with all safety standards. However, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides as follows:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall 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 . . . .

In order to avoid violating this provision, a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business which installed the lift kit would need to ensure, by carefully comparing the lift kit and its planned installation with the requirements of relevant safety standards, that such installation enables the vehicle to continue to comply with all applicable safety standards. Violations of 108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation. I note that section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:VSA#207#208#209#210 d:l2/4/9l

ID: 3239yy

Mr. Michael E. Kastner
Director of Government Relations
National Truck Equipment Association
1350 New York Avenue NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20005-4797

Dear Mr. Kastner:

This responds to your letter of September 4, 1991, asking whether an altered vehicle label must be added under the following circumstances:

An NTEA member receives a truck which is certified as a completed vehicle. This vehicle has not yet been titled or registered for use in any state. The NTEA member then installs a piece of equipment. This piece of equipment would not be considered readily attachable, nor would this equipment modify the completed vehicle's weight ratings. Both the completed truck manufacturer and the equipment manufacturer have stated that installation of this equipment would not affect compliance with any federal motor vehicle safety standard.

If the modification you describe is performed prior to the first purchase in good faith of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, the answer to your question is yes. A person is considered an alterer if (1) they alter the vehicle in any manner "other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components ... or minor finishing operations," or (2) they alter "the vehicle is such a manner that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid." Since the conditions you describe involve equipment which is not readily attachable, the NTEA member would be considered an alterer.

If considered an alterer, the NTEA member would be subject to the certification requirements of 49 CFR 567.7. These requirements include provisions that the alterer supplement the existing manufacturer certification label, which must remain on the vehicle, by affixing an additional label. The label must state that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The label would also state the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed.

If the modification you describe is performed after the first purchase in good faith of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, the NTEA member would not be considered an alterer and an alteration label would not have to be attached. Under these conditions, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with applicable safety standards is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

In general, this "render inoperative" provision would require any of these named entities to ensure that any additional equipment installed in a vehicle would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on the vehicle with applicable safety standards. Violations of 108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:VSA#567 d:12/6/9l

ID: 3240yy

Mr. Floyd J. Barkman
Vice President Sales & Marketing
Collins Bus Corporation
P.O. Box 2946
Hutchinson, KS 67504-2946

Dear Mr. Barkman:

This responds to your letter of October 16, 1991, to Ms. Susan Schruth of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration. Because your questions concern a final rule issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Ms. Schruth has referred your letter to our office for response. Your questions are as follows.

1. Based on a final ruling that went into effect September 1, 1991, all MPV and/or buses with a gross vehicle weight less than 10,000 pounds are required to have Type 1 or Type 2 occupant restraints at all seated positions. Also, all outboard occupants or passengers are required to have three point shoulder harness. We also understand school buses are exempt from the outboard shoulder harness. Are these statements correct and are there any exceptions to these rulings?

Your understanding of the September 1, 1991, final rule is correct. The only exception to these requirements is that the rear-seat lap/shoulder belt requirement does not apply to rear outboard seating positions located adjacent to a walkway located between the seat and the side of the vehicle to allow access to more rearward seating positions. I am enclosing a copy of the Federal Register notice for this final rule. A discussion of this exception is found on page 46258. A discussion of the agency's rationale for excluding small school buses from the rear-seat lap/shoulder belt requirement is found on page 46260 of the same notice.

2. We build under 10,000 GVW buses for the day care industry that use school bus interiors with school bus safety seats and lap belts at all locations. The exterior of the bus is commercial. Would these buses require the outboard shoulder harness?

The answer to this question depends on whether these vehicles are classified as school buses. Under NHTSA's certification requirements (49 CFR Part 567), a vehicle's type is determined using the definitions set out in 49 CFR 571.3. A school bus is defined as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, to and from school or school-related events. A program for pre-primary age children is considered a school if the program is primarily educational rather than custodial in nature. If your vehicle is a not a school bus, it must comply with the rear-seat lap/shoulder belt requirement. If the vehicle is a school bus, it does not have to comply with this requirement.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure /ref:208 d:12/6/9l

ID: 3241yy

John C. Buonora
Director
The City of New York
Police Department
Motor Transport Division
53-15 58th Street
Woodside, NY 11377

Dear Mr. Buonora:

This responds to your letter of November 1, 1991, "regarding the removal of the operating handle for the reclining mechanism of the 1991 Chevrolet police car split bench seat." You asked for "a written determination stating whether or not the removal of the operating handle violates the seat safety standard and any possible NYPD legal liability in the event of an accident." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the requirements of Federal law for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act requires manufacturers to certify that each of their new vehicles or new items of equipment complies with all applicable safety standards at the time the product is delivered to the first purchaser in good faith for purposes other than resale.

After a vehicle is delivered to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, modifications to the vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. Therefore, if a business in any of the aforementioned categories removed the reclining mechanism operating handle, it would need to ensure that the vehicle continued to comply with all applicable safety standards following the removal.

Please note that section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles. Therefore, the City of New York Police Department may itself remove the operating handle for the seat reclining mechanism on vehicles it owns without violating the "render inoperative" provision or any other provisions of the Safety Act, even if such removal did result in the vehicle no longer complying with all applicable safety standards.

However, the individual States have the authority to regulate the modifications that owners can make to their own vehicles. You should contact the State of New York to learn if it has enacted any laws or regulations that apply to your planned modification. In addition, since legal liability is a matter of state law, you may wish to consult with an attorney familiar with the law in the State of New York regarding potential liability.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:VSA d:12/3/9l

ID: 3242yy

Ms. Sandra Mesh-Witucki
McGraw, Borchard & Martin
5200 State Street
Saginaw, Michigan 48603

Dear Ms. Mesh-Witucki:

This responds to your November 1, 1991 letter in which you asked for "a certified copy of all rules/standards applicable to (a 1987 Chevrolet Cargo Van Conversion) both before and after conversion, and any other information you feel may be of assistance." Your letter mentioned that you are interested in this information for pending litigation concerning an accident in which this vehicle was involved in which, "(a)llegedly, a rear seat passenger suffered a spinal fracture from the lap belt." In a phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff on November 26, 1991, you verified that you are specifically interested in regulations concerning the type of safety belts this vehicle was required to have. The following discussion should clarify NHTSA regulations regarding safety belts.

The safety belt installation requirements for all vehicle types are set forth in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). S4.2.1 of Standard No. 208 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of three options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after January 1, 1976 and before September 1, 1991. Option 1, set forth in S4.1.2.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide automatic protection at the front outboard seating positions, lap or lap/shoulder safety belts at all other seating positions, and either meet the lateral crash protection and rollover requirements by means of automatic protection systems or have manual safety belts at the front outboard seating positions such that those positions comply with the occupant protection requirements when occupants are protected by both the safety belts and the automatic protection. Option 2, set forth in S4.1.2.2, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide a lap or lap/shoulder safety belt at every seating position, have automatic protection for the front outboard seats, and have a warning system for the safety belts provided. Option 3, set forth in S4.1.2.3, requires the manufacturer to install lap or lap/shoulder safety belts at every seating position and to have a warning system for those belts.

Standard No. 208 and all the rest of NHTSA's safety standards are found in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 571. This and all other volumes of the CFR may be purchased by contacting:

Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Phone: (202) 783-3238

Because the CFR is published by the Government Printing Office, that office is the only source for certified copies of the regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any more questions about this issue, feel free to contact Mary Versailles at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:208 d:l2/l0/9l

ID: 3243yy

Mr. Don Weidman
Manager, Special Projects
The Grote Manufacturing Company
2600 Lanier Drive
Madison, Indiana 47250

Dear Mr. Weidman:

This responds to your letter of November 25, 1991, with respect to the applicability of some new requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to "agricultural vehicles and implements when they are traveling on the highways." Specifically you ask whether the requirements of Standard No. 108 or SAE J137 must be complied with when agricultural equipment is in use.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to motor vehicles, which are defined, in pertinent part, by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as vehicles "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." Because the primary use for agricultural vehicles such as farm tractors, combines, and the like is off the public roads, and their use of the public roads is incidental to their intended use, NHTSA does not consider agricultural vehicles to be "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Act. This means that they do not have to conform to Standard No. l08, or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Regulations governing the use of the public roads are issued and enforced by the individual States. We have no knowledge whether any State requires the lighting on agricultural equipment to conform to SAE J137, or to Standard No. l08. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, may be able to answer this question for you.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:l08 d:l2/l0/9l

ID: 3244yy

Mr. James Watson
Post Office Box 153
Finleyville, PA 15332

Re: United States Customs Service File No. 866522R

Dear Mr. Watson:

This responds to your request for my opinion of whether a particular vehicle, an e-tant manufactured in Thailand by P.S.N, that you wish to import into the United States for your own use as a "farm vehicle," would be considered a "motor vehicle" for the purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). According to materials you submitted, the e-tant has the appearance of a small flat bed truck. However, since it has a small 11.5 horsepower engine, you believe its top speed would be under 20 mph. You believe that the e-tant should be classified as a "farm vehicle," explaining that you disagree with the U.S. Customs Service classification (NY ruling 866522 dated September 11, 1991) of the e-tant as a motor vehicle. You further explained that the e-tant is generally used as a farm vehicle in Thailand. Based on the information provided in your letter, it is our opinion that the e-tant would be a motor vehicle under the Safety Act.

Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (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.

NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, then NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." This finding was made with respect to dune buggies, notwithstanding the manufacturers' statements that the vehicles were not intended to be used on the public roads.

NHTSA has also stated in many prior interpretations that even vehicles that will regularly be used on the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" for purposes of the Safety Act, if the vehicles have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and a maximum speed of 20 mph or less.

Your vehicle is not easily classified under any of these groupings. In such circumstances, we are sometimes able to evaluate factors related to how manufacturers/dealers will advertise, market, and service a particular vehicle in the United States. However, these factors are not relevant where a person is importing a single vehicle for his or her own use. I also note that an individual owner's planned use for a vehicle being imported is not determinative of whether the vehicle is a motor vehicle.

We believe that the relevant factors concerning whether the e-tant is considered a motor vehicle are as follows. First, the e-tant has a body configuration similar to a standard truck. Moreover, in the country where it is manufactured for sale, your letter indicates that the vehicle is used on rural highways to carry crops to market in nearby towns and for visiting friends. In addition, since the e-tant closely resembles a standard small truck, it is likely that states would register it for use on the public highways. The only factor you have identified which suggests that the e-tant should not be considered a motor vehicle is its slow speed, which you believe would be under 20 mph. However, NHTSA does not consider slow speed to be a sufficient factor by itself to take a vehicle which otherwise would be considered a motor vehicle outside of that category. Therefore, after considering all of these factors, it is our opinion that the e-tant would be considered a motor vehicle.

If you have any further questions or need additional information, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel cc: Area Director of Customs New York Seaport New York, NY 10048

Office of Regulations and Rulings U.S. Customs Service Headquarters 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20229 /ref:VSA#571 d:l2/l0/90l