ID: nht73-1.18

DATE: 10/10/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Motor Vehicle Administration

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This is in further response to correspondence dated July 10, 1973, between the Maryland Department of Transportation and Mr. Bernard Nolan. Mr. Nolan had written to the Maryland State Attorney General's Office regarding the practice of tire dealers of selling tires that have been relabeled "tube type" by their manufacturer, while representing that it was not necessary, and may even be unsafe, to install tubes in them. You attach a memorandum to you from Mr. Thomas J. Widerman which concludes that the practice does not violate any Federal or State law but recommends that Maryland's proposed tire safety standards be amended to prohibit the practice. You indicate to Mr. Nolan that you are forwarding the matter to this agency for appropriate action.

We believe this practice involves at least a technical violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a) (1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)) prohibits, among other things, the sale of motor vehicle equipment manufactured after the effective date of an applicable safety standard that does not conform to the standard.

We believe a person who sells a "tube type" tire as a tubeless tire is at least representing that the tire will meet the Federal standard applicable to tires, No. 109, without a tube. Accordingly, we believe that it is appropriate under the Safety Act to test that tire to the standard as a tubeless tire and, if failure occurs, to initiate civil penalty proceedings against the tire seller. That seller may also be liable for civil penalties for certifying the tire as conforming in a false and misleading manner (Sec. 108(a)(3) of the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(3)).

I am therefore referring the matter to our enforcement personnel with the recommendation that they inquire into the matter.

However, I also concur with the recommendation of Mr. Widerman that a specific prohibition against this practice be made part of Maryland law. NHTSA's enforcement procedures are civil in nature, and involve determinations that products fail to meet technical tests which are time-consuming and costly to run. State criminal procedures would, in our view, be far more effective than NHTSA's procedures in dealing with situations such as this.

Sincerely,

July 10, 1973

E. Wallace -- Dept. of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Ed:

A little slow perhaps, but here is a section of the B.F.Goodrich "Space Saver Spare" tire you asked me for.

We are trying spring plates in the molds to get the prescribed branding below the curb rib as now required. As you can see it will not be visible for(Illegible Word) to see it when it is in the trunk and folded as is normally the case,(Illegible Word) his we must also put it below the tread edge as you can see it on the section. This means a "double" branding job on these tires.

I gathered from Mike Peskos concluding remarks after our meeting on our petition that he felt there was a good chance of us getting some relief from this multiple and unnecessary branding.

Any suggestions or ideas your office may have which can be accomplished by rewording and/or rewriting the petition to make acceptance more likely will be appreciated.

Please call any time you feel further discussion on the petition is necessary or might help solution of our problems in this area.

Yours very truly,

B.F.GOODRICH TIRE COMPANY,

A Division of The B.F.Goodrich Co. --

F. S. Vukan

ID: ModelYearJonesLet.4

Erika Z. Jones, Esq.
Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw
1909 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1101

Dear Ms. Jones:

This responds to your letter of November 19, 2002, regarding Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) requirements (49 CFR Part 565). Specifically, you ask whether 49 CFR 565.6(d)(1) permits a manufacturer to designate vehicles as belonging to a single model year, where the production period for such vehicles falls within three different calendar years, but runs for less than 24 months in total. Based upon the definition of the term "model year" in 49 CFR 565.3(j), the answer is no.

We are pleased to clarify this provision of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) regulations dealing with VIN requirements. Under 49 CFR 565.6(d)(1), manufacturers are directed to include a character for model year as the first character of the fourth section of the VIN, with the year-specific alphanumeric code drawn from Table VI of that section. Under 49 CFR 565.3(j), the term "model year" is defined as "the year used to designate a discrete vehicle model, irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle was actually produced, so long as the actual period is less than two calendar years."

Before the agency promulgated a final rule moving VIN requirements to Part 565 (48 FR 22567, May 19, 1983), those requirements were found in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 115. As your letter observes, the final rule states that "[t]he basic substantive requirements of Standard 115 are unchanged by this action." 48 FR 22567, 22567. However, in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that preceded the final rule, the agency did note that "[s]ome minor clarifications are also being proposed in this notice." 47 FR 42004, 42005 (Sept. 23, 1982).

One of those clarifications concerned the definition of "model year," for the purpose of the VIN regulations. In its migration from FMVSS No. 115 to Part 565, the definition of "model year" was changed slightly, with the word "calendar" added to the text requiring that the actual period of production be "less than two calendar years."

Before that change, the definition of "model year" read: "the year used to designate a discrete vehicle model irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle was actually produced, so long as the actual period is less than 2 years." Although we recognize that, as you suggest, it would have been possible to construe the reference to "2 years" in that definition as meaning any 24-month period, the presence of the term "calendar year" earlier in the same sentence would have equally supported an alternative construction that "2 years" referred to two calendar years. Thus, the 1983 addition of the word "calendar" to the definition of "model year" clarified the earlier definition in order to remove any possible ambiguity as to the meaning of "years."

The agency received no comments objecting to this amendment in response to the NPRM, and the final rules definition of the term "model year" has remained in place for nearly two decades. Moreover, interpreting the term "model year" to mean any 24-month period, as your letter suggests, would require us to read out the concept of "calendar year" from the definition at 49 CFR 565.3(j).

As you apparently realize, vehicles manufactured in calendar year 2003 could not be designed as MY 2005 vehicles for purposes of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program (see 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(15)) or the Theft Protection requirements (see 49 U.S.C. 33101(8)). While we recognize that those programs are authorized under a different statute than the VIN program, we see no reason to construe the VIN requirements in a manner that would allow vehicles to have different model years for different purposes.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Assistant Chief Counsel

ref:565
d.2/4/03

ID: nht72-2.3

DATE: 07/24/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Weirich Associates

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 11, 1972, inquiring about the use of plastic for an automatically closing fuel cap for automobiles.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the responsibility for promulgating standards that improve the safety performance of new motor vehicles to minimize injuries and fatalities associated with the use of motor vehicles. Among the standards that have been issued is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301, which specifies performance requirements for the fuel tank, fuel tank filler pipe, and fuel tank connections. Like other Federal Standards issued by the NHTSA, this standard is performance oriented and does not specify design requirements. This standard will shortly be amended to specify additional performance requirements including rear-end collisions and rollover. In addition, other proposals will also be issued to considerably improve fuel containment to minimize the possibility of fuel spillage resulting from additional vehicle impacts. The essential requirements pertain to demonstrations of safe fuel containment as the result of standardized vehicle crash tests. How the results are to be achieved, what materials can or cannot be used, or other design features, are left to the discretion of the motor vehicle manufacturer in order that there should be the maximum freedom for innovation and inventiveness to meet the specified safety performance. We have no restrictions in the use of plastics or other materials that meet a specified safety performance requirement.

In view of present rulemaking action to amend FMVSS No. 301, there has been much information assembled, which is part of the public record, concerning comments from manufacturers, the interested public, and from suppliers of components. Your components, including a self-closing fuel cap and a seal within the filler pipe are interesting developments having possible contribution to improved safety. We would be pleased to have more information concerning these developments and with your permission, we would like to have copies of descriptive information to put into our public record, Docket No. 70-20, for the public and for the motor vehicle industry to see.

We should mention also that the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, which regulates interstate commercial transportation of passengers and cargo, has regulations which include fuel caps. You may want to contact this organization for their current requirements. Their location is at the same address of NHTSA.

Relative to pollution, the current requirements for fuel evaporative emission controls have resulted in motor vehicles being equipped with fuel caps that either have no vents or which vent only after certain stress develops from positive or negative internal tank pressure. You may want to contact the Environmental Protection Agency concerning their regulations. The address is 1626 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

We are enclosing a copy of FMVSS No. 301, a copy of a notice proposing additional requirements, and a copy of Public Law 89-563.

We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety.

SINCERELY,

WEIRICH ASSOCIATES

July 11, 1972

Department of Transporation

Bureau of Motor Vehicles

Gentlemen:

We have developed a closure for the gasoline tanks for automobiles that automatically closes after filling thereby preventing spillage in the event the present day cap is not replaced properly, or in some instances not put back in place.

The piece can also be made to include a seal inside the fill pipe which effectively closes in case of collision damage.

Our question is to inquire regarding the use of plastics in the manufacture of this type of closure. Does the government have any regulations in this regard?

We do believe the new closure will contribute to some degree in the prevention of pollution, and to a greater measure as a safety device.

May we please have your early reply?

Paul Weirich General Manager

ID: 19234.nhf

Mr. Thomas J. Undlin
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.
Attorneys at Law
2800 Lasalle Plaza
800 Lasalle Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015

Dear Mr. Undlin:

This responds to your inquiry about whether the Polaris RANGER manufactured by your client, Polaris Industries Inc., is a motor vehicle that would have to comply with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I apologize for the delay in our response. You state that the RANGER is a general purpose off-road utility vehicle with features that make it impractical to operate on public roads. You explain that the RANGER's certificate of origin states: "This general purpose, off-road utility vehicle is not intended for and may not be registered for on-road use." You also explain that the RANGER is designed to fit in the rear of a standard full-sized pickup truck so that it may be transported, rather than operated, on public roads. On the basis of the information you provided in your letter and the warning labels, photographs and owner's manual excerpts you enclosed, it appears that the RANGER is not a motor vehicle.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues and enforces the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA's statute defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. 49 USC 30102(a)(6).

Whether NHTSA considers the RANGER to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. In the past, we have concluded that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-road use of the equipment is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which they were manufactured. Other construction vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on the information you provided in your letter and the warning labels, photographs and owner's manual excerpts you enclosed, it appears that the RANGER is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the statutory definition. This conclusion is based on the statements in your letter that the RANGER is designed to fit in the rear of a full-size standard pickup truck to move between off-road sites. It is also based on the statement that the RANGER is designed and sold for off-road use only and has certain features that make it impracticable to use on paved roads. We note that the vehicle lacks a differential for both the rear driven axles. The lack of a differential, which ordinarily facilitates turning by allowing the wheels to rotate at different rates, makes the RANGER difficult to drive on pavement. Other features of the RANGER, including the oversized-cleated tires and suspension system, are consistent with off highway use. Assuming your statements are correct, we would consider the RANGER to be an off-road vehicle. If we were to receive additional information indicating that the RANGER uses the public roads on more than an incidental basis or that Polaris is no longer selling it as an off-road vehicle, the agency would reassess this interpretation.

If you have further questions regarding NHTSA's safety standards, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
cc: Leonard Goldstein Office of General Counsel
U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission
Washington, DC 20207 ref:VSA#591
d.8/6/99

ID: nht94-3.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John G. Klinge -- Executive Vice President, Visibility Lighting Systems

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 6/23/94: Letter from John Klinge to John Womack (OCC-10103)

TEXT:

This responds to your inquiry about whether a warning light device you manufacture would comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning devices (49 CFR @ 571.125). Promotional literature accompanying your letter indicates that the "L ightman" is a flashing, battery operated device that is 3 1/2 inches wide by 1 1/2 inches high. You stated that you plan to market this product as a warning light source for use by truck fleets and commercial auto fleets. I am pleased to have this oppo rtunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, Congress has authorized this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. (49 U.S.C. 30101 et s eq.) We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 125. NHTSA has no authority to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, Congress has established a self-certification process under which each manufacturer i s required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

Please note that Standard No. 125 applies to "devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be p ermanently affixed to the vehicle." (Emphasis added; see section S3 of the standard.) In other words, Standard No. 125 does not apply to warning devices with self-contained energy sources. In previous interpretations, the agency has determined that the phrase "self-contained energy sources" includes such things as battery powered lights. Accordingly, a warning device which consists of a battery operated flashing light would not be subject to Standard No. 125.

In a July 20, 1994 conversation with Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, you asked about the use of your product by commercial

vehicle operators. Please be aware that NHTSA has the authority to regulate the manufacture but not the use of warning devices. As Mr. Shaw explained, you may wish to contact the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) which is authorized to regulate som e motor vehicle operators and vehicle operations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht69-1.41

DATE: 07/09/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Tank Truck Service

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letters dated April 7 and June 3, 1969, in which you request clarification of the Certification Regulations that become effective with vehicles manufactured after August 31, 1969.

You are correct in your interpretation that the certification should be attached to the door post or the other locations in the cab of a vehicle that are specified in section 367.4(c). You should note, however, that the label is not a "body certification", as you describe it, but certifies that the entire vehicle conforms to applicable safety standards.

With regard to your suggestion that the label should be placed on the body rather than the chassis of the vehicle, since in the case of your vehicles the body is likely to last longer, it has been determined that uniformity of location is of primary importance for enforcement purposes. The life of various components varies, as you know, from one vehicle to another. These regulations do not cover the situations in which used components are recombined with new ones.

Thank you for your cooperation.

ID: 10103

Mr. John G. Klinge
Executive Vice President
Visibility Lighting Systems
P.O. Box 494
Southport, CT 06490

Dear Mr. Klinge:

This responds to your inquiry about whether a warning light device you manufacture would comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning devices (49 CFR '571.125). Promotional literature accompanying your letter indicates that the "Lightman" is a flashing, battery operated device that is 3 1/2 inches wide by 1 1/2 inches high. You stated that you plan to market this product as a warning light source for use by truck fleets and commercial auto fleets. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, Congress has authorized this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 125. NHTSA has no authority to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, Congress has established a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

Please note that Standard No. 125 applies to "devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle." (Emphasis added; see section S3 of the standard.) In other words, Standard No. 125 does not apply to warning devices with self-contained energy sources. In previous interpretations, the agency has determined that the phrase "self-contained energy sources" includes such things as battery powered lights. Accordingly, a warning device which consists of a battery operated flashing light would not be subject to Standard No. 125.

In a July 20, 1994 conversation with Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, you asked about the use of your product by commercial

vehicle operators. Please be aware that NHTSA has the authority to regulate the manufacture but not the use of warning devices. As Mr. Shaw explained, you may wish to contact the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) which is authorized to regulate some motor vehicle operators and vehicle operations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Ref:125 d:8/12/94

ID: 11641ZTV

Mr. Nathan L.M. McCarthy
The Syndicate, LLC
Drawer 250793
West Bloomfield, MI 48325-0793

Dear Mr. McCarthy:

This is in reply to your letter of February 22, 1996, to Barry Felrice of this agency with respect to your "intermittent daytime running lights" invention.

The invention "is intended primarily for the aftermarket" where "vehicles are without the OEM installed DRL." You wish to know whether it is regulated by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, whether " a waiver from NHTSA could be obtained to permit on the road testing" if not under Standard No. 108, "or if there is any other direction to take to achieve the desired end result to support the patent." The system consists of front and rear mounted strobe lamps which flash 45 times a minute.

Your system would not be allowed as original motor vehicle equipment under Standard No. 108 because this standard does not permit supplementary lighting equipment such as your invention to flash. Aftermarket equipment is regulated by Standard No. 108 only if it is equipment intended to replace the lighting equipment with which a vehicle was originally equipped pursuant to the requirements of Standard No. 108. This is not the intended purpose of your invention. Consequently, Standard No. 108 does not regulate your invention. However, it is subject to the prohibitions of Title 49 United States Code Section 30122 Making safety devices and elements inoperative. Under this section, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business "may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle" pursuant to an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

The question, then, is whether the operation of a flashing strobe lamp would affect the purpose of the required lighting equipment, which is to convey signals and to mark the vehicle. It is our considered opinion that a flashing strobe lamp, surely a novelty, would distract other drivers, at least momentarily, from stop signals and turn signals, and, in that sense, make them "inoperative." Section 30122 then would prohibit manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses from installing your invention.

The prohibition does not extend to the vehicle owner, and there may be some purchasers with the expertise necessary to install your system on their vehicles. In this event, operation of the system is regulated by the individual states. It is our impression that many states restrict the use of strobe lights to emergency vehicles. If you wish to know more about state laws, we recommend that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22303.

Although we have authority to establish regulations under Section 30122, we have not done so, and, in the absence of this, have no general authority to waive its prohibitions. We have no other suggestions for you. If you have further questions, you may contact Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:108:SEC.30122 d:4/2/96

ID: nht74-3.43

DATE: 05/10/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: City of Philadelphia

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 5, 1974, inquiring whether manufacturers of 4-door sedans to be sold to the City of Philadelphia at police vehicles may, consistently with Federal requirements, remove the window and door handles from the rear doors. You state that the vehicle manufacturers claim that Federal requirements prohibit them from modifying the vehicle in this fashion.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206 (49 CFR 571.206) requires each passenger car rear door to have a locking mechanism that is operable from within the vehicle and that, when engaged, renders the outside an inside door handles inoperative. This requirement applies to the locking mechanism. We do not interpret it to require an inside door handle. There are no Federal standards which require the installation of passenger car window handles.

The fact that in this case the vehicles are intended for government use is immaterial. To clarify the phone conversation which preceded your letter, Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) allows a State or its political Subdivision to require that motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use meet a higher standard of preformance than the Federal safety standard, but all vehicles must meet the Federal safety standards.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

SINCERELY,

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

March 5, 1974

Lawrence Scheider Chief, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The City of Philadelphia is in the process of purchasing 1,000 four-door passenger Sedans to be used as police vehicles. We have requested the bidding manufacturers to remove the window and door handles from the rear doors of the vehicles. We have been told by the manufacturers that there is a federal regulation which prohibits this modification.

On March 1, 1974, I spoke via telephone with Mr. Stanley Feldman, Esquire, from your office regarding this matter. It was Mr. Feldman's opinion that modifications which are normally adhered to by federal regulations may be changed to suit our particular needs since the City of Philadelphia is a political sub-division of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

I would appreciate receiving your written verification on Mr. Feldman's opinion prior to any further negotiations with the vehicle manufacturers.

Please send your response to the undersigned, City of Philadelphia, 1600 Municipal Services Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107.

CHARLES W. MURPHY

Safety Director

ID: 22717.ztv

Herr Helmut Honauer
TUV Automotive GmbH
Daimlerstrabe 11
D-85748 Garching
Germany





Dear Herr Honauer:

This is in reply to your e-mail of February 15, 2001, with respect to standards and regulations related to tracked vehicles. You describe a specific vehicle "similar to a snowmobile" with rubber pads on the drive train. The vehicle has a maximum speed of 50 to 62 km/h, and will carry four persons. You state that it is "planned to be used on public roads."

Our agency establishes requirements for "motor vehicles." A "motor vehicle" is "a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways." (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6)). Although your letter statets that the vehicle is driven by mechanical power and is "planned to be used on the public roads," it would not be a "motor vehicle" under our regulations unless it has been manufactured "primarily" for use on the public roads.

One of the factors we consider in determining whether a vehicle is a "motor vehicle" subject to our jurisdiction is the intent of the vehicle's manufacturer. Since it appears that your company is not the manufacturer of the tracked vehicle, your statement that on road use is planned may not represent the manufacturer's intent. The fact that the vehicle has tracks instead of tires suggests that its primary use is more likely to be off the public roads in terrains where tracks provide an advantage rather than on the public roads where tires would be preferable. The relatively low speed of the vehicle is also consistent with that of a vehicle which is manufactured primarily for use off the public roads.

Vehicles that are not motor vehicles come within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. If you wish to write the Commission about possible regulations concerning tracked vehicles, the address is: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, D.C. 20207-0001.

If the manufacturer intends that the vehicle be used primarily on the public roads, it would be considered a motor vehicle and subject to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If this should be the case, we would invite you to contact us again concerning how our standards would apply to the vehicle. We would, however, need a more detailed description of the vehicle.

In the United States, each State establishes its own requirements for registration of on-road vehicles. I am sorry, but we are unable to advise you on regulations that each State might apply to on-road use of tracked vehicles.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.5/23/01