Interpretation ID: nht90-2.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 25, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JERRY W. MOONEY -- RESIDENT IN CHARGE, DEPT. OF THE TREASURY, U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE TITLE: FILE SV08PLOSV001

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-29-90 TO STEVEN WOOD FROM JERRY W. MOONEY; (OCC 4612) TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of March 29, 1990, with respect to your investigation of the importation of 17 M151A2 military jeeps from Canada. The jeeps were imported as "parts" rather than as vehicles, shipped intact inside containers "and covered w ith parts."

You have asked three questions:

1. "We are of the understanding that a list does not exist naming certain vehicles as being noncomplying. If not, what is the procedure to determine if a vehicle complies to DOT standards?"

Your understanding is correct; no list of nonconforming vehicles exists. No procedure per se exists to determine if a vehicle meets DOT standards. However, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each motor vehicle must bear the permanen tly-affixed certification of its manufacturer that it complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that applied to it on its date of manufacture. The presence of the certification label gives rise to, the presumption that the vehicle meets D OT Standards, and vehicles offered for importation bearing the certification label are admitted into the United states as complying vehicles.

2. "We are of the understanding that the M151A2 does not comply to DOT standards. What makes it a noncomplying vehicle?"

The M151A2 jeep was not certified as conforming to Federal standards. The lack of certification raises a presumption of nonconformance with all standards. Whether it did, in fact, meet some or all of those standards is a question to which we do not have the answer.

3. Does the fact that the M151A2 was manufactured for DOD make it a noncomplying vehicle?

No. Under the regulations of this agency, no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to a vehicle manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States, in compliance with contractual specifications. Although this relieves the manufacturer of the legal obligation of compliance, he may nevertheless choose to manufacture his vehicle in conformance with one or more standards. As I said in response to your second question, we have no knowledge as to the M151A2's state of com pliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

I hope that this is responsive to your questions. Although the importation of these vehicles appears to be a violation of the regulations of this agency (the failure to file a declaration), it is only a technical one, since no Federal motor vehicle safe ty standard applied to the jeeps at the time of their manufacture. Nevertheless, we are concerned about the safety implications of this importation.

For many years, the Department of Defense, with the encouragement of this agency, has maintained the policy that all M151 vehicles must be scrapped at the end of their useful military life in a manner such that they cannot be reassembled for use on the p ublic roads. Over the years, these vehicles have exhibited a tendency to roll over, even when operated by drivers specifically trained in their correct usage. Consequently, it has been deemed in the interests of safety to ensure that they will not be o perated by untrained drivers on the public roads. While exportation of unscrapped M151s to Canada initially removed the threat to safety in the United States, their importation into this country renews that threat. Thus, we support your investigative e fforts. We understand that, under Customs procedures, merchandise entered fraudulently may be redelivered for export, or seized by Customs. If the vehicles are seized, we recommend their export or destruction, rather than disposal by sale at auction or by use by Customs personnel in the performance of their duties.