Interpretation ID: milazzo.ztv

100 Page Road
Bow, NH 03304

Dear Mr. Milazzo:

You have asked for interpretations of two provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30141.

Your first request concerned the meaning of the phrase "substantially similar" in Section 30141(a)(1)(A). In context, the statutory phrase reads "(A) the vehicle is (i) substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for import into and sale in the United States; (ii) certified under section 30115 of this title; (iii) the same model year . . . as the model of the motor vehicle it is being compared to;"

The phrase has been defined through usage. NHTSAs first criterion is whether a vehicle of the same make, model, and model year has been sold in the United States as the vehicle covered by the petition. Even if the manufacturer used a different model designation but both vehicles have "a commonality in construction such as body [and] chassis," NHTSA would regard them as being of the same "model" in a family of vehicles. See definition of "model" in 49 CFR 579.4(c) and its application to a family of vehicles in the enclosed Federal Register notice (67 FR 61378 at 61379).

Your second request concerned the meaning of the phrase "capable of being altered" in Section 30141(a)(1)(B). This section relates to vehicles for which there are no substantially similar counterparts that have been certified for sale in the United States. If a vehicle has no substantially similar counterpart, a petitioner seeking a decision that it is eligible for importation must demonstrate that "the safety features of the vehicle comply with or are capable of being altered to comply with" the FMVSS. The absence of the word "readily" in paragraph (B) of this section reflects a Congressional awareness that vehicles without U.S.-certified counterparts may require more extensive modifications to bring them into compliance with some of the applicable FMVSS than vehicles that have substantially similar U.S.-certified counterparts. We judge "capability" on a factual case-by-case basis; i.e., we consider the FMVSS at issue and the arguments made by the petitioner and any comments on the petition.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:591
d.4/4/03