Interpretation ID: 86-1.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/25/86 EST

FROM: DIANE K. STEED -- ADMINISTRATOR NHTSA

TO: RICHARD P. HAHN -- HALFPENNY, HAHN & ROCHE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/25/86 EST, TO GEORGE W KEELEY FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A29(3), VSA 102 (3); LETTER DATED 03/04/86 TO DIANE K STEED, FROM GEORGE W KEELEY

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hahn:

Thank you for your letter to Secretary Dole on behalf of the Construction Industry Manufacturers Association concerning a recent interpretation letter issued by this agency to Mr. P.J. Pennells. The letter, which you saw reported by the Bureau of National Affairs, concerned the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to construction equipment. I am glad to have this opportunity to clarify the agency's position.

The agency's letter to Mr. Pennells offered some brief general guidelines about the applicability of our safety standards and offered to provide a specific interpretation once we received more detailed information about the design characteristics and use of the particular vehicle Mr. Pennells was concerned about. The letter should not be interpreted as a departure from our long-standing policy on the application of our standards to construction equipment.

It is the agency's position that the statutory definition of motor vehicle contained in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which uses 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-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In instances where 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, we believe that such vehicles are motor vehicles in the statutory sense, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental." We believe this position is fully consistent with the court's decision in Koehring Co. v. Adams (452 F. Supp. 635 (E.D. Wis. 1978), aff'd, 605 F.2d 280 (7th Cir. 1979)).

I am providing a copy of your letter and my response to Mr. Pennells and the Bureau of National Affairs. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,