ID: nht95-1.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 17, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Connie Mack -- United States Senate

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 12/12/94 letter from Connie Mack to DOT Intergovernmental and Consumer Affairs; Also related to 1/17/95 letter from Philip Recht to Bob Graham (A43; Std. 109); Also related to 12/15/94 letter from Bob Graham to John Womack

TEXT: Dear Senator Mack:

Thank you for your letter of December 12, 1994, addressed to the Intergovernmental & Consumer Affairs office of this Department. You forwarded to us a letter from your constituent, Mr. Howard J. Levy, Vice-President, Used Tire International, of Deerfiel d Beach, Florida.

Mr. Levy expressed concern in his letters to you and this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), about a proposed bill in the Puerto Rico Senate which would require that used tires imported into Puerto Rico have not less than 5/32 inch tread depth and which would impose a tax of $ 10 per tire on such imports. Mr. Levy is concerned that the proposed bill would mean the end of the used tire industry on the island. In his letter to this agency, he asked, "Does NHTSA have juri sdiction over these laws in Puerto Rico or does the Puerto Rican Senate control the regulations over highway safety," and requested our help in this matter.

We have carefully evaluated Mr. Levy's concerns. As discussed in our enclosed response to Mr. Levy, however, we have concluded that the laws and regulations that we administer will not be of help to him. Since our opinion is limited to consideration of the laws and regulations that we administer, we have suggested to Mr. Levy that he may wish to consult a private attorney concerning whether the proposed Puerto Rico bill raises other legal issues that are relevant to his concerns.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht

Enclosure

JAN 17 1995

Mr. Howard J. Levy Used Tire International 837 S.E. 8th Avenue, Suite 202 Deerfield Beach, FL 33441

Dear Mr. Levy: This responds to your letter to Dr. Ricardo Martinez, Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), referring to a bill before the Puerto Rico Senate. The bill would require all used tires imported into Puerto Rico to have a minimum of 5/32 inch tread depth and would impose a tax of $ 10 per tire.

You stated that the proposed requirement is 3/32 inch more than is "required by U.S. law," and that if the proposal became law it "would mean the end of the Used Tire industry on the island." You asked, "Does the NHTSA have jurisdiction over these laws i n Puerto Rico or does the Puerto Rican Senate control the regulations over highway safety," and requested this agency's help in this matter.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the laws and regulations that we administer. As discussed below, however, those laws and regulations will not be of help to you with respect to your concerns about the proposed Puerto Rico law.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized by Federal law (Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (hereinafter referred to as the Safety Act)) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle eq uipment. The Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. It also prohibits commercial businesses from rendering inoperative the compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment with a safety standard.

NHTSA's safety standards do not, however, apply to used vehicles or equipment. (I note that if a used tire is imported as motor vehicle equipment, the tire must have complied with the safety standards at the time of its manufacture.) Instead, the individ ual states have the authority to regulate used vehicles and equipment. Also, the Office of Motor Carriers within the Federal Highway Administration has the authority to regulate commercial vehicles and equipment operated in interstate commerce. (Your s tatement that the proposed Puerto Rico tread depth requirement is 3/32 inch more than is "required by U.S. law" appears to be referring to a requirement specified by the Office of Motor Carriers, Federal Highway Administration, for commercial vehicles. See 49 CFR @ 393.75(c)).

I will now turn to your question concerning whether NHTSA has jurisdiction over the laws being considered by the Puerto Rican Senate. The Safety Act includes one provision which addresses Federal preemption of state laws. That provision (49 U.S.C. @ 30 103(b)) specifies that when a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a state (including Puerto Rico) may maintain a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is i dentical to the Federal standard. (States may, however, specify higher standards for vehicles or equipment obtained for their own use.) Therefore, if a state specified a particular requirement for new tires that was different from one specified for the same aspect of performance as a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, the state law would be preempted. Moreover, a state law could be impliedly preempted if it frustrated the purposes of the Safety Act.

While we have not reviewed the specific text of the Puerto Rico bill, we do not believe the Safety Act is relevant to the particular concerns you raise in your letter. In order for a state law to be preempted under 49 U.S.C. @ 30103(b), it would have to apply to new vehicles or equipment. However, you are concerned about state requirements for used tires, not new tires. A state law which applied to used vehicles or equipment could be impliedly preempted if it had the same practical effect as a state law for new vehicles/equipment that would be preempted under 49 U.S.C. @ 30103(b), i.e., the law in question had the practical effect of requiring vehicles/equipment to be designed in a certain manner. However, neither a general tax on imported used tir es nor a tread depth requirement that applied only to imported used tires would have any practical effect on the design of new tires.

Based on consideration of the laws and regulations that we administer, we have therefore concluded that the proposed bill that you describe would not raise any preemption issues relevant to the importation of used tires. Since this opinion is limited to consideration of the laws and regulations that we administer, you may wish to consult a private attorney concerning whether the proposed Puerto Rico bill raises other legal issues that are relevant to your concerns.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ID: nht95-1.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 17, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Bob Graham -- United States Senate

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 12/15/94 letter from Bob Graham to John Womack; Also related to 1/17/95 letter from Philip Recht to Connie Mack (A43; Std. 109); Also related to 12/12/94 letter from Connie Mack to the DOT

TEXT: Dear Senator Graham:

Thank you for your letter of December 15, 1994, addressed to John Womack of this office. You forwarded to us a letter from your constituent, Mr. Howard Levy, Vice-President, Used Tire International, of Deerfield Beach, Florida.

Mr. Levy expressed concern in his letters to you and this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) about a proposed bill in the Puerto Rico Senate which would require that used tires imported into Puerto Rico have not less than 5/32 inch tread depth and which would impose a tax of $ 10 per tire on such imports. Mr. Levy is concerned that the proposed bill would mean the end of the used tire industry on the island. In his letter to this agency, he asked "Does NHTSA have jurisd iction over these laws in Puerto Rico or does the Puerto Rican Senate control the regulations over highway safety," and requested our help in this matter.

We have carefully evaluated Mr. Levy's concerns. As discussed in our enclosed response to Mr. Levy, however, we have concluded that the laws and regulations that we administer will not be of help to him. Since our opinion is limited to consideration of the laws and regulations that we administer, we have suggested to Mr. Levy that he may wish to consult a private attorney concerning whether the proposed Puerto Rico bill raises other legal issues that are relevant to his concerns.

Sincerely, Philip R. Recht

Enclosure:

JAN 17 1995

Mr. Howard J. Levy Used Tire International 837 S.E. 8th Avenue, Suite 202 Deerfield Beach, FL 33441

Dear Mr. Levy:

This responds to your letter to Dr. Ricardo Martinez, Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), referring to a bill before the Puerto Rico Senate. The bill would require all used tires imported into Puerto Rico to have a minimum of 5/32 inch tread depth and would impose a tax of $ 10 per tire.

You stated that the proposed requirement is 3/32 inch more than is "required by U.S. law," and that if the proposal became law it "would mean the end of the Used Tire industry on the island." You asked, "Does the NHTSA have jurisdiction over these laws i n Puerto Rico or does the Puerto Rican Senate control the regulations over highway safety," and requested this agency's help in this matter.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the laws and regulations that we administer. As discussed below, however, those laws and regulations will not be of help to you with respect to your concerns about the proposed Puerto Rico law.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized by Federal law (Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (hereinafter referred to as the Safety Act)) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle eq uipment. The Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. It also prohibits commercial businesses from rendering inoperative the compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment with a safety standard.

NHTSA's safety standards do not, however, apply to used vehicles or equipment. (I note that if a used tire is imported as motor vehicle equipment, the tire must have complied with the safety standards at the time of its manufacture.) Instead, the individ ual states have the authority to regulate used vehicles and equipment. Also, the Office of Motor Carriers within the Federal Highway Administration has the authority to regulate commercial vehicles and equipment operated in interstate commerce. (Your s tatement that the proposed Puerto Rico tread depth requirement is 3/32 inch more than is "required by U.S. law" appears to be referring to a requirement specified by the Office of Motor Carriers, Federal Highway Administration, for commercial vehicles. See 49 CFR @ 393.75(c)).

I will now turn to your question concerning whether NHTSA has jurisdiction over the laws being considered by the Puerto Rican Senate. The Safety Act includes one provision which addresses Federal preemption of state laws. That provision (49 U.S.C. @ 30 103(b)) specifies that when a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a state (including Puerto Rico) may maintain a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is i dentical to the Federal standard. (States may, however, specify higher standards for vehicles or equipment obtained for their own use.) Therefore, if a state specified a particular requirement for new tires that was different from one specified for the same aspect of performance as a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, the state law would be preempted. Moreover, a state law could be impliedly preempted if it frustrated the purposes of the Safety Act.

While we have not reviewed the specific text of the Puerto Rico bill, we do not believe the Safety Act is relevant to the particular concerns you raise in your letter. In order for a state law to be preempted under 49 U.S.C. @ 30103(b), it would have to apply to new vehicles or equipment. However, you are concerned about state requirements for used tires, not new tires. A state law which applied to used vehicles or equipment could be impliedly preempted if it had the same practical effect as a state law for new vehicles/equipment that would be preempted under 49 U.S.C. @ 30103(b), i.e., the law in question had the practical effect of requiring vehicles/equipment to be designed in a certain manner. However, neither a general tax on imported used tir es nor a tread depth requirement that applied only to imported used tires would have any practical effect on the design of new tires.

Based on consideration of the laws and regulations that we administer, we have therefore concluded that the proposed bill that you describe would not raise any preemption issues relevant to the importation of used tires. Since this opinion is limited to consideration of the laws and regulations that we administer, you may wish to consult a private attorney concerning whether the proposed Puerto Rico bill raises other legal issues that are relevant to your concerns.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ID: nht90-3.52

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 8, 1990

FROM: Dean J. Long -- Design Engineer, VDO-YAZAKI CORPORATION

TO: To whom it may concern

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-17-90 to Dean J. Long from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Std. 105; Std. 101)

TEXT:

I have two automotive instrument panel telltale warnings I wish to confirm are legal in the views of the NHTSA Legal Council and FMVSS. The attached sheet shows my two proposals.

The first is a 4 wheel antilock brake application. Techically, I believe this telltale is legal due to the approved abbreviation "ABS" being present. I have seen the antilock brake ISO symbol which is similar to the one I have shown except the car and "skid marks" are replaced with the "ABS" abbreviation. My question here is, Will this telltale fullfil the requirements or do I need to replace the car and "skid marks" ISO symbol with the "ABS" ISO symbol?

The second telltale is used for warning against hazardous emissions from the vehicle. I have seen numerous telltales relating to this application. A few you may be familar with "SERVICE ENGINE SOON", "SERV ENG SOON", "CHECK ENGINE" or simply "CHECK". I would like to know two things concerning this application. One, is the word "CHECK" necessary with the engine outline? Two, is the engine outline an approved ISO symbol and if not yet will it be concidered at a later date?

Please respond on or before August 27 1990 as I must begin a production run with these telltales. Thank you for your assistance and if you need to contact us please call Mike Benoit at (313) 853-2266.

Attachment

Picture of two telltale warnings. (Graphics omitted.)

ID: 3109yy

Mr. Ivan Lee
Deputy General Manager
Regulation Affairs
Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc.
5075 Venture Drive
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108

Dear Mr. Lee:

This responds to your letter of June 17, 1991 concerning an interpretation of Standard No. 214. You state that Hyundai would like to have the following percentage of its passenger cars meet the dynamic performance requirements of the standard in each applicable year:

1994 model year -- 20 percent 1995 model year -- 20 percent 1996 model year -- 50 percent 1997 model year -- 100 percent

You ask whether this compliance schedule is acceptable.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the requirements of Standard No. 214. The new dynamic test requirements of Standard No. 214 are phased in over a three-year period, beginning on September 1, 1993. The October 30, 1990 final rule established two alternative compliance schedules. Each manufacturer must comply with either alternative, at its discretion. Under the first schedule, each manufacturer will have to meet the new side impact performance requirements based on the following phase-in schedule:

10 percent of automobiles it manufactures during the l2 month period beginning September l, l993;

25 percent of automobiles it manufactures during the l2 month period beginning September l, l994;

40 percent of automobiles it manufactures during the l2 month period beginning September l, l995; and

All automobiles it manufactures on or after September l, l996. To accommodate variation in the numbers of vehicles manufactured each year, the standard also permits these percentages to be applied to a three-year average annual production rather than to a single year's production. See section S8 of Standard No. 214.

Under the second schedule, no compliance will be required during the production year beginning September 1, l993, but full implementation will be required effective September 1, l994.

The compliance schedule you suggest would not appear to comply with either alternative. Since your suggested schedule does not achieve full implementation until the 1997 model year, it clearly does not comply with the second schedule. Under the first schedule, for passenger cars manufactured between September l, l994 and August 3l, l995, the number of passenger cars complying with the dynamic performance requirements must not be less than 25 percent of (a) the average annual production of passenger cars manufactured on or after September l, l99l, and before September l, l994, by each manufacturer, or (b) the manufacturer's annual production of passenger cars between September l, l994 and August 3l, l995. See sections S3(c) and S8.2 of Standard No. 214. However, under the compliance schedule you suggest, only 20 percent of Hyundai's vehicles would meet the requirements during the 1995 model year. (I assume that, by 1995 model year, you mean the period from September 1, 1994 through August 31, 1995. The rule refers to time periods, rather than to model years.)

The agency has received three petitions for reconsideration of the final rule requesting that the agency allow use of "carry-forward credits" during the phase-in of the dynamic test requirements. Such an approach could allow a compliance schedule like the one you suggested. The agency response to the petition will address the issue raised in your letter. The agency response is expected to be published in the Federal Register later this summer.

Please review the agency response to the petitions for reconsideration when it is published. If you believe that you need further clarification, please contact us again.

I hope that this information has been useful. If there are any further questions, please contact John Rigby of this office at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Ref#: Std. 214 d:7/23/9l

ID: nht91-5.5

DATE: July 23, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ivan Lee -- Deputy General Manager, Regulation Affairs, Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-17-91 from Ivan Lee to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6151)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 17, 1991 concerning an interpretation of Standard No. 214. You state that Hyundai would like to have the following percentage of its passenger cars meet the dynamic performance requirements of the standard in each applicable year:

1994 model year -- 20 percent 1995 model year -- 20 percent 1996 model year -- 50 percent 1997 model year -- 100 percent

You ask whether this compliance schedule is acceptable.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the requirements of Standard No. 214. The new dynamic test requirements of Standard No. 214 are phased in over a three-year period, beginning on September 1, 1993. The October 30, 1990 final rule established two alternative compliance schedules. Each manufacturer must comply with either alternative, at its discretion. Under the first schedule, each manufacturer will have to meet the new side impact performance requirements based on the following phase-in schedule:

10 percent of automobiles it manufactures during the 12 month period beginning September 1, 1993;

25 percent of automobiles it manufactures during the 12 month period beginning September 1, 1994;

40 percent of automobiles it manufactures during the 12 month period beginning September 1, 1995; and All automobiles it manufactures on or after September 1, 1996.

To accommodate variation in the numbers of vehicles manufactured each year, the standard also permits these percentages to be applied to a three-year average annual production rather than to a single year's production. See section S8 of Standard No. 214.

Under the second schedule, no compliance will be required during the production year beginning September 1, 1993, but full implementation will be required effective September 1, 1994.

The compliance schedule you suggest would not appear to comply with either alternative. Since your suggested schedule does not achieve full implementation until the 1997 model year, it clearly does not comply with the second schedule. Under the first schedule, for passenger cars manufactured between September 1, 1994 and August 31, 1995, the number of passenger cars complying with the dynamic performance requirements must not be less than 25 percent of (a) the average annual production of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, and before September 1, 1994, by each manufacturer, or (b) the manufacturer's annual production of passenger cars between September 1, 1994 and August 31, 1995. See sections S3(c) and S8.2 of Standard No. 214. However, under the compliance schedule you suggest, only 20 percent of Hyundai's vehicles would meet the requirements during the 1995 model year. (I assume that, by 1995 model year, you mean the period from September 1, 1994 through August 31, 1995. The rule refers to time periods, rather than to model years.)

The agency has received three petitions for reconsideration of the final rule requesting that the agency allow use of "carry-forward credits" during the phase-in of the dynamic test requirements. Such an approach could allow a compliance schedule like the one you suggested. The agency response to the petition will address the issue raised in your letter. The agency response is expected to be published in the Federal Register later this summer.

Please review the agency response to the petitions for reconsideration when it is published. If you believe that you need further clarification, please contact us again.

I hope that this information has been useful. If there are any further questions, please contact John Rigby of this office at 202-366-2992.

ID: nht95-3.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 30, 1995

FROM: Michael A. Norman

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/13/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO MICHAEL A. NORMAN (A43; STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear MR. Womack:

Enclosed please find the product information regarding the Auto Truckers Courtesy Light. Please prepare a written response that can be presented to Ginger Clore Secretary of New Products Committee Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street, Rich mond, VA 23219-1939. Fax # (804) 328-3136. The final decision concerning the product is July 13, 1995. Thank you for your time and assistance. Let me know if you have any question or need more information. I can be reached at P.O. Box 23211 Richmond, VA 23223. Home phone (804) 783-2612

Enclosures

Describe product or material:

The Auto And Truckers Courtesy Light is a Signalling and Courtesy device thanking a trailing motorist for blinking his lights to assist the truck operator in changing back to the right hand lane after passing. The light lens member is provided with a written message indicating - Thums-Up, USA, Thank-You or V DOT. The apparatus includes A Aluminum Casing in which a reflector is mounted with Signal lights. The Lexen facing slides into the casing. The device operates with Audio - and Visual indicato rs with three second automatic delay cut-off. The device is adapted for mounting permently or temporarily to the rear of the vehicle.

Applications, further descriptions, drawings are omitted.

ID: 15216.df

Mr. Dean Knapp
Marketing Manager
Link Manufacturing Ltd.
223 15th St., N.E.
Box 68
Sioux Center, IA 51250-4876

Dear Mr. Knapp:

This responds to your May 12, 1997, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, as it applies to "an air mattress and cover that will be used in large class 8 truck sleeper cabs." You ask three questions about the standard which we have restated below, followed by our answers.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following is a discussion based on our understanding of your letter.

Question: Must this product comply with MVSS 302 for that application or is the normal class "C" coil spring mattress, cigarette burn standard acceptable?

Section S4.1 of Standard 302 lists the components that are covered by the standard, and includes "mattress covers" among them. However, the answer depends in part on whether the product will be sold as part of a new vehicle or as replacement equipment. Standard 302 applies to new trucks and other new motor vehicles, but not to items of replacement equipment that are separately sold to a vehicle owner. Thus, if your product will be sold in the aftermarket, NHTSA does not require its compliance to Standard 302. Nevertheless, our statute prohibits a manufacturer, repair business, dealer or distributor from making inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with the safety standards. Accordingly, those entities may not install a noncomplying mattress cover in any vehicle, because that would vitiate the vehicle's compliance with Standard 302.

In addition, the States have the authority to regulate aspects of vehicle use in their jurisdictions. A State may have its own flammability resistance requirements where Standard 302 does not apply.

Question: Does the standard apply only to the outer cover material or must the quilted foam liner and air bladder also comply?

We have previously defined "mattress cover" as including both a cover that is used generally to enclose a mattress for cleanliness or sanitary purposes as well as the ticking permanently attached to the mattress to enclose the mattress filling or core. While the configuration of your mattress is hard to visualize, at the very least, it would seem that both the outer cover material and the quilted foam liner must comply, the latter being similar to ticking material. As for the air bladder, we have said in interpretations of Standard 302 (e.g., December 15, 1972), that a component that is "incorporated into" a component that is listed in S4.1 is subject to the standard. Thus, if the bladder is incorporated into (attached to) the quilted foam liner, the bladder must meet the standard. Conversely, if the bladder is not part of the liner, it would be excluded from the standard.

Question: If it [our product] must comply, are there any exceptions based on market size, distribution channel, sales volumes, etc.?

Under one of our regulations (49 CFR Part 555), vehicle manufacturers may apply for a temporary exemption from Standard 302. Under Sec. 555.6(a), a manufacturer whose yearly production is not more than 10,000 units may ask for an exemption of up to three years on the basis that compliance would cause it substantial economic hardship and that it has attempted in good faith to comply with the standard from which it has asked to be excused. I have enclosed a copy of Part 555 for your information. There is no comparable provision in our statute allowing for applications for exemptions from manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment.

You also ask for a summary of Standard 302's test procedure. I have enclosed a copy of the standard for your information.

If you have other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:302
d.7/3/97

ID: nht81-2.5

DATE: 03/17/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Thiele Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Ted Thiele Thiele Incorporated P.O. Box 188 111 Spruce Street Windber, PA 15963

Dear Mr. Thiele

This is in response to your letter forwarding your firm's vehicle identification numbering system and requesting confirmation that it complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 -Vehicle identification number.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not give advance approval of a manufacturer's compliance with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations, as it is the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that its vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards. However, my office has reviewed your proposed system. Based on our understanding of the information which you have provided, your system apparently complies with Standard No. 115.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 28, 1981

Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. 400 Commonwealth Drive Warrendale, PA 15096

Attention: Leo P. Ziegler, Jr.

Gentlemen:

We are enclosing copy of our coding system to be used in our trailer identification numbers. We will not begin to use this system until we have your approval.

Yours truly,

THIELE, INCORPORATED

Ted Thiele

TT:rr cc: N. F. Erickson, NHTSA?DOT

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

ID: nht91-7.40

DATE: December 10, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth Weinstein

TO: James Watson

COPYEE: Area Director of Customs, New York Seaport; Office of Regulations and Rulings, U.S. Customs Service Headquarters

TITLE: Re United States Customs Service File No. 866522R

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-10-91 from James M. Watson to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6569)

TEXT:

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 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.