ID: nht94-7.10

DATE: April 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: R. Mark Willingham, Esq. -- Thornton, Summers, Biechlin, Dunham & Brown, L.C. (Austin, TX)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/1/94 from Mark Willingham to John Womack (OCC 9640)

TEXT:

This responds to your February 1, 1994, letter to me about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) consumer information regulation for utility vehicles (49 CFR 575.105, Utility Vehicles). The regulation, Part 575.105, requires manufacturers to permanently affix a prescribed sticker in a prominent location of each utility vehicle to alert drivers of the handling differences between utility vehicles and passenger cars.

You asked about the meaning of the word "permanent" as used in Part 575.105. In a May 1984 final rule establishing Part 575.105 (copy enclosed), NHTSA said that the label "should be of a permanent nature" and concurred with a comment on the proposed rule that the label should be permanently affixed so that, among other reasons, subsequent vehicle owners are made aware of the utility vehicle's handling characteristics. NHTSA believed specifying precisely how the label is to be permanently affixed would be design restrictive. However, we stated in the enclosed final rule that stickers such as the placard required by paragraph S4.3, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, would be considered adequate.

You also asked "to whom is Part 575.105 directed (i.e., manufacturer, distributor, dealership)...(or) a seller of a used vehicle." The regulation applies to the manufacturer and seller of a new vehicle, not to a seller of a used vehicle. The regulation was issued under sections 103, 112 and 119 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C S1381, et seq. (hereinafter Safety Act). Section 103 authorizes NHTSA to issue and amend Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 112(d) (15 U.S.C. S1401(d)) authorizes NHTSA:

"(T)o require the manufacturer (of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment) to give such notification of such performance and technical data as the Secretary determines necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act in the following manner --

(1) to each prospective purchaser of a motor vehicle or item of equipment before its first sale for purposes other than resale . . .; and

(2) to the first person who purchases a motor vehicle or item of equipment for purposes other than resale . . . .

Section 119 confers general rulemaking authority to issue rules to effectuate the express grants of authority and the obligations imposed by the Safety Act.

Sections 103, 112, and 119 of the Safety Act authorize NHTSA to require the consumer information label up to the delivery of the new vehicle to the consumer who first purchases the vehicle "for purposes other than resale." NHTSA cannot require sellers of used vehicles to restore missing labels prior to sale of the used vehicles, or prohibit a vehicle owner from removing or defacing the label.

You also asked for documents regarding the drafting and interpretation of Part 575.105. Please find enclosed copies of the following: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, dated December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58323); final rule, dated May 11, 1984 (49 FR 20016); final rule, response to petitions for reconsideration, dated August 10, 1984 (49 FR 32069); and letter to Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq., dated August 15, 1984. For future reference, copies of NHTSA's interpretation letters can be obtained from the agency's docket section. The address for the docket is 400 Seventh St., S.W., Room 5108, Washington, D.C., 20590, telephone (202) 366-4949.

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

ID: nht94-7.39

DATE: March 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John M. Tolliday -- President, Dayman USA Inc. (Bedford, VA)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/7/89 from Stephen P. Wood to Clifford Anglewicz (Sec 102); Also attached to letter dated 9/2/93 from John M. Tolliday to John Womack (OCC 9063)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of September 2, 1993, with respect to your wish to import "British Army Ferret Armored Cars." The armaments have been removed. You would be selling these vehicles "on the basis they would only be used for off road purposes." You ask whether the vehicles would be exempt from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have enclosed two photos of the machine.

By way of background, I would like to discuss how military vehicles manufactured in the United States are treated under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the authority for the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). The first question to be answered is whether any particular vehicle is a "motor vehicle" as defined by the Safety Act, that is to say, whether it is a vehicle that has been manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. If we conclude that a vehicle is manufactured primarily for on road use, it is a "motor vehicle," notwithstanding the fact that it may be sold "on the basis they would only be used for off road purposes." We see no way in which a seller can bind a purchaser to such use, and, certainly, such a restriction would not be binding on subsequent owners of the vehicle. As for individual vehicle types, to state the obvious, a tracked motor vehicle such as a tank intended for cross-country off-road terrains is not a "motor vehicle." If a vehicle, such as a military bus, has been manufactured primarily for on- road use, it is a "motor vehicle." However, NHTSA excuses vehicles from compliance with the FMVSS if they have been manufactured in accordance with contractual specifications of the armed forces of the United States (49 CFR 571.7(a)). Furthermore, because the Safety Act does not regulate sales of vehicles to owners subsequent to the original one, the U.S. armed forces may sell military vehicles to the public at the end of their useful military life without having to bring them into conformity with the FMVSS (however, because of safety policy considerations they have not done so with respect to M-151 jeeps and HMMV vehicles).

The importation of used military vehicles manufactured abroad is governed differently. Under the Safety Act, any "motor vehicle," whether new or used, that is imported into the United States must be brought into conformity with all FMVSS that applied at the time of its manufacture. The question that must be answered is whether a Ferret, at the time of importation, would be considered a "motor vehicle." In an interpretation concerning an "armored security vehicle" then being used by the U.S. armed forces, we informed the manufacturer, Verne Corporation on August 7, 1989, that the vehicle would have to conform to the FMVSS if sold for civilian use. I enclose a copy of that interpretation. We believe that this interpretation applies to the Ferret as well, and, therefore, the vehicle is not exempt from the FMVSS. Because of the

overall configuration of the Ferret with its high approach and departure angles and its suitability for use on rough terrain, the FMVSS that would apply are those that must be met by a "multipurpose passenger vehicle."

Assuming you are still interested in importing the Ferret's for resale, the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act requires that the agency determine that the vehicles are capable of conversion to meet the FMVSS, and that the Ferrets be imported by a "registered importer." The agency makes determinations upon the basis of a petition by the manufacturer or registered importer (or upon its own volition). A "registered importer" is one whom NHTSA has recognized as capable of converting vehicles to meet the FMVSS. If you would like further details on eligibility determinations and import procedures, please let us know and we shall be pleased to provide them.

ID: nht94-3.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 14, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James H. Shuff -- President, Freedom Trailers

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/9/94 from James H. Shuff to NHTSA Chief Counsel (OCC-9666)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether tires and wheel rims used with your "park model travel trailers" are subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. As ex plained below, the answer is no, because your travel trailers are not motor vehicles.

Your letter provided the following information about your "trailers." The trailers are intended for recreational use, rather than for year round living. Each unit is a maximum of 400 sq. ft., and may be as wide as 12 feet. You state that after your trai lers are constructed, they "will be towed to their campsite and set up," where they may be used for "winter camping in the year round parks." Once your trailers are set up, you would reuse the tires and rims.

By way of background, 49 U.S.C. @ 30101 et seq. authorizes NHTSA to regulate new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, including tires and rims. Standard No. 120, and all of our safety standards, apply only to vehicles that are "motor vehicles," w ithin the meaning of the statute. The term "motor vehicle" is defined at 49 U.S.C. @ 30102(a)(6) as:

"motor, vehicle" means a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

We have determined that your "trailers" are not motor vehicles based on two examinations. First, while the characteristics of your trailers are not entirely clear in your letter (our repeated attempts to reach you by telephone have been unsuccessful), i t appears that your trailers could be considered "mobile homes." Mobile homes are regulated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and

2

are not "motor vehicles" subject to regulation by NHTSA. Accordingly, tire and rim selection for mobile homes is not subject to Standard No. 120 or any other NHTSA regulation. For information about mobile homes, you can contact the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th St., SW, Washington, DC 20410.

Second, even if your "trailer" is not a mobile home, it does not meet the Safety Act definition of a "motor vehicle." We have interpreted the definition as follows. Vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use are not considered motor vehicles, ev en though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles, such as mobile construction equipment, that use the public roads only to travel between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site, are not c onsidered motor vehicles. In such cases, the use of the public roads is incidental, not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured.

On the other hand, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies and re gardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicles were to be operated.

Based on your description, it appears that, analogous to mobile construction equipment, the on-road use of your travel trailers appears to be incidental and not the primary purpose for which they are manufactured. Therefore, your trailers are not subjec t to Standard No. 120's requirements for tire selection and rims. Please note that this conclusion is based solely on the facts presented in your letter. We may reexamine this conclusion if additional information becomes available that would warrant a reexamination.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-4.10

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 26, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Irene M. Thomas (Aurora, CO)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/20/94 from Irene M. Thomas to Dee Fujita (OCC 10151)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about safety regulations for a device you call a "CarMobile." The CarMobile is a type of strap to which three rings are sewn. The CarMobile attaches by "velcro" straps to the handrails located at the top of the inter ior rear car doors. You state that "Toys would be hung from the rings, so that babies and toddlers can play with them as they dangle in front of their carseats."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any veh icles or items of equipment. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

In response to your question, there is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that directly applies to the product you wish to manufacture. However, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufactu rer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. SS30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. (1) In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, while it is unlikely that the CarMobile would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 49 U.S.C. S30122 prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative " compliance with any safety standard. NHTSA's safety standard for built-in child restraint systems (Standard 213) specifies requirements that ensure that the area surrounding a child in a built-in restraint is free from objects that could injure a chil d's head in a crash. If the CarMobile's cord and rings cause the vehicle with the built-in restraint to no longer comply with Standard 213, any of the aforementioned parties installing the CarMobile may have violated S30122.

The prohibition of S30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety s tandards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles, and would discourage them from hanging toys or other objects in front of a seated child that could injure the child in a crash. We also wish to point out th at any kind of ribbon or line that can

wrap around the neck of a child in a crash poses a potential risk of strangulation in a crash. You should consider these and any other relevant safety concerns when designing the CarMobile and when instructing consumers how t use the device.

I hope this is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202 366-2992.

---------------

(1) Please note that the "National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act" and "Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act" to which the information sheet refers have recently been recodified in Title 49 of the United States Code. This means that the citations used in the information sheet are outdated; however, the substantive requirements described in the sheet have not changed.

ID: nht93-1.33

DATE: 02/11/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: CHRISTOPHER J. DANIELS NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-18-92 FROM CHRISTOPHER J. DANIELS TO PAUL JACKSON RICE (OCC 8199)

TEXT: This responds to your letter to Paul Jackson Rice, our former Chief Counsel, in which you referred to a tire manufactured in Canada that had had the "DOT number" obliterated. Because you think the tire was improperly sold in that condition, you asked whether it was illegal to import a tire from Canada without a DOT number and whether it was illegal to sell or use a tire on the highway without a "DOT serial number."

By way of background information, under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. @ 1381, et seq., as amended (hereinafter Safety Act), the National Higway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment, the latter of which includes tires. All new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. This requirement is found at Section 1397 (a) (1) (A) of the Safety Act which provides "No person shall . . . import into the United States, any . . . item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard. . . ." The effect of that language is to require that tires manufactured on or after the effective date of applicable Federal safety standards must comply with those standards before they can be legally imported into the U.S. Pursuant to Standard 109 (49 CFR 571.109, New Pneumatic Tires) and Standard 119 (49 CFR 571.119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars), tire manufacturers must certify compliance therewith by molding the symbol "DOT" onto the tire sidewalls. Further, 49 CFR 574.5 requires that all tires sold in the U.S. have tire identification numbers (TIN) molded into or onto the tire sidewalls by the manufacturers to facilitate recall in the event of a noncompliance or defect.

With that background in mind, your specific questions are answered as follows:

1. Is it illegal to import a tire from Canada without a DOT serial number? Answer: Yes. Each tire imported into the U.S. for highway use must have molded into or onto the sidewall a TIN and a DOT symbol or in the alternative, be accompanied by proof that the tire was manufactured prior to the effective date of applicable safety standards. The only exception to these requirements is that used truck tire casings which have less than 2/32 inch tread remaining and which are being imported solely for retreading prior to on-road use may be imported without displaying the TIN or the DOT symbol.

2. Is it illegal to sell or use a tire for highway use without the DOT serial number? Answer: It is illegal for a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer to sell a new or retreaded tire to the first customer for purposes other than resale without the DOT symbol and the TIN molded into or onto the sidewall. There are no Federal requirements for the use of such tire once it has been sold to the first customer. There may, however, be state safety requirements pertinent to the use of motor vehicle equipment. For that information you should check with appropriate state officials.

If the tire in question is intended for or capable of being used on a commercial vehicle, you may want to check also with the Office of Motor Carrier Standards (Room 3404), of the Federal Highway Administration, at this address. (Telephone (202) 366-1790.)

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

ID: nht75-2.32

DATE: 12/29/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your November 20, 1975, letter concerning the use of replacement parts which may affect a vehicle's compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is applicable only to vehicles.

You have presented the example of a vehicle that, if equipped with a door that does not have guard bars, would not be in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214. Because that standard is applicable only to passenger cars, there is no prohibition on the mere sale of such doors for use as replacement equipment. However, Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended ("the Act"), specifies that

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless such manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes that such vehicle or item of equipment will not be used (other than for testing or similar purposes in the course of maintenance or repair) during the time such device or element of design is rendered inoperative. For purposes of this paragraph, the term "motor vehicle repair business" means any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation.

Therefore, the installation of a door that does not have guard bars is a violation of the Act, if that installation is performed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business. Installation of such a door by one of your dealers, for example, is not permitted.

Your letter also asked whether the use of such doors would be permitted in the future, in the event that Standard No. 214 is relaxed in a way that would permit the use of such doors on a new vehicle. It is the opinion of this agency that replacement of a door, or any other safety system installed in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, with a system mandated by a later safety standard (even if the later standard imposes a less stringent level of performance) would not violate Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act, as amended.

SINCERELY,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

November 20, 1975

Frank Berndt Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration This is to ask your interpretation regarding the requirement for replacement parts in the case of FMVSS's which are applied to only the vehicle, such a FMVSS 105, 114, 208, 214, 215 and so on.

1) Since the above mentioned FMVSS's require that the vehicle must be in compliance with them at only the time of manufacture, may we understand that there is no requirement for replacement parts of the vehicle after retail?

(example)

When we replace the door of 1974 model vehicle, may we use the door without guard bars as the replacement part? ( In this case, this vehicle does not meet FMVSS 214 after replacement)

If the answer is no, is it due to the fact that there is Motor Vehicle Safety Act Sec. 108(a) (2) (A)?

2) When the requirement is relaxed, may we use the replacement parts which do not meet the requrement before relaxation?

(example)

If in the future, FMVSS 214 is relaxed and we need not use the door with guard bars as a result of relaxation, may we use the door without guard bars as the replacement part of the vehicle manufactured before relaxation?

Thank you for your attention to the above question. We look forward to hearing your interpretation of the above in the near future.

Tokio Iinuma Staff, Safety

ID: nht74-5.40

DATE: 04/03/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 19, 1974, request for information in behalf of Mr. Robert J. Jones, concerning the commercial offer he received for a device that would defeat the ignition interlock device found on 1974 model passenger cars.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 authorizes the issuance of motor vehicle safety standards, one of which requires occupant crash protection, one aspect of which is the ignition interlock system. Section 108(a)(1) of the Act prohibits the sale, offer for sale, introduction into interstate commerce, or the importation of any motor vehicle which does not conform to the standards. Our regulatory authority over new vehicles ends, however, with the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale. While we can prohibit arrangements between a dealer and a purchaser to disconnect the interlock, where they are part of the sales transaction, we have no remedy against arrangements to defeat the safety features made after the sales transaction.

Nevertheless, while selling devices intended to defeat safety equipment may be legal, we consider such practices reprehensible since they increase the chances of death and injury on the highways. We are considering a variety of remedies for the situation reported by Mr. Jones.

ENCLS.

Congress of the United States

House of Representatives

Washington, D.

March 19 1974

Congressional Liasion National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Sir:

The attached communication is sent for your consideration. Please investigate the statements contained therein and forward me the necessary information for reply, returning the enclosed correspondence with your answer.

Yours truly,

Frank Thompson, Jr.

M.C.

Re: Mr. Robert J. Jones

FEBRUARY 27, 1974

Honorable Francis Thompson House of Representatives Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Thompson:

The enclosed letter arrived in the mail today.

Could you have someone on your staff direct this letter from Merit Enterprise to the proper "Consumer Advocate Bureau" or governmental watch dog agency as a register of my protest against obvious effort to thwart the new safety laws?

I protest this crazy bridgefree enterprise that allows groups like Merit Enterprise to make a buck by devising ways to short cut and render unworkable good laws.

Sincerely yours,

Robert J. Jones Lawrenceville, N.J.

Dear New Car Owner:

We trust that you are pleased with your 1974 automobile. We are not so sure that you are pleased with the seal belt-starter interlock system which is standard equipment under a Congressional mandate.

There are times when this system is not only inconvenient, uncomfortable, and impractical, but also unsafe. For instance, when a child is buckled in the passenger's seat, there is a chance that his face or neck can be severely injured in a collision by the shoulder harness.

We are sure that you have already found that an article in either the passenger or center seat makes it necessary to buckle the article up to start the vehicle. This is most inconvenient for those of us who transport a briefcase, a bowling ball, or even a bag of groceries.

Recognizing these shortcomings in the seat belt interlock system, Merit Enterprises manufacturers and markets BELT-MATE, a product which allows you, the vehicle owner to temporarily override the system when it isn't prudent for personal safety.

If you feel the decision, "To Buckle or Not to Buckle", should be made by you instead of Congress, send $ 4.98 in cash, check or money order for your BELT-MATE to Merit Enterprises, Box 4068, Hampstead, N. C. 28443. Your Belt-Mate comes complete with instructions - no wiring needed, and your satisfaction is guaranteed.

Allow 2 to 3 weeks for delivery. North Carolina residents add 4% sales tax.

Awaiting your reply.

Very truly yours,

John R. Merit

ID: nht94-1.78

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John M. Tolliday -- President, Dayman USA Inc. (Bedford, VA)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/7/89 from Stephen P. Wood to Clifford Anglewicz (Sec 102); Also attached to letter dated 9/2/93 from John M. Tolliday to John Womack (OCC 9063)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of September 2, 1993, with respect to your wish to import "British Army Ferret Armored Cars." The armaments have been removed. You would be selling these vehicles "on the basis they would only be used for off road purposes." You ask whether the vehicles would be exempt from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have enclosed two photos of the machine.

By way of background, I would like to discuss how military vehicles manufactured in the United States are treated under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the authority for the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). The first qu estion to be answered is whether any particular vehicle is a "motor vehicle" as defined by the Safety Act, that is to say, whether it is a vehicle that has been manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. If we conclude that a vehicle is manufac tured primarily for on road use, it is a "motor vehicle," notwithstanding the fact that it may be sold "on the basis they would only be used for off road purposes." We see no way in which a seller can bind a purchaser to such use, and, certainly, such a restriction would not be binding on subsequent owners of the vehicle. As for individual vehicle types, to state the obvious, a tracked motor vehicle such as a tank intended for cross-country off-road terrains is not a "motor vehicle." If a vehicle, suc h as a military bus, has been manufactured primarily for on- road use, it is a "motor vehicle." However, NHTSA excuses vehicles from compliance with the FMVSS if they have been manufactured in accordance with contractual specifications of the armed forc es of the United States (49 CFR 571.7(a)). Furthermore, because the Safety Act does not regulate sales of vehicles to owners subsequent to the original one, the U.S. armed forces may sell military vehicles to the public at the end of their useful milita ry life without having to bring them into conformity with the FMVSS (however, because of safety policy considerations they have not done so with respect to M-151 jeeps and HMMV vehicles).

The importation of used military vehicles manufactured abroad is governed differently. Under the Safety Act, any "motor vehicle," whether new or used, that is imported into the United States must be brought into conformity with all FMVSS that applied at the time of its manufacture. The question that must be answered is whether a Ferret, at the time of importation, would be considered a "motor vehicle." In an interpretation concerning an "armored security vehicle" then being used by the U.S. armed for ces, we informed the manufacturer, Verne Corporation on August 7, 1989, that the vehicle would have to conform to the FMVSS if sold for civilian use. I enclose a copy of that interpretation. We believe that this interpretation applies to the Ferret as well, and, therefore, the vehicle is not exempt from the FMVSS. Because of the

overall configuration of the Ferret with its high approach and departure angles and its suitability for use on rough terrain, the FMVSS that would apply are those that must be met by a "multipurpose passenger vehicle."

Assuming you are still interested in importing the Ferret's for resale, the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act requires that the agency determine that the vehicles are capable of conversion to meet the FMVSS, and that the Ferrets be imported by a "re gistered importer." The agency makes determinations upon the basis of a petition by the manufacturer or registered importer (or upon its own volition). A "registered importer" is one whom NHTSA has recognized as capable of converting vehicles to meet t he FMVSS. If you would like further details on eligibility determinations and import procedures, please let us know and we shall be pleased to provide them.

ID: nht94-2.12

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: R. Mark Willingham, Esq. -- Thornton, Summers, Biechlin, Dunham & Brown, L.C. (Austin, TX)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/1/94 from Mark Willingham to John Womack (OCC 9640)

TEXT:

This responds to your February 1, 1994, letter to me about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) consumer information regulation for utility vehicles (49 CFR 575.105, Utility Vehicles). The regulation, Part 575.105, requires man ufacturers to permanently affix a prescribed sticker in a prominent location of each utility vehicle to alert drivers of the handling differences between utility vehicles and passenger cars.

You asked about the meaning of the word "permanent" as used in Part 575.105. In a May 1984 final rule establishing Part 575.105 (copy enclosed), NHTSA said that the label "should be of a permanent nature" and concurred with a comment on the proposed rule that the label should be permanently affixed so that, among other reasons, subsequent vehicle owners are made aware of the utility vehicle's handling characteristics. NHTSA believed specifying precisely how the label is to be permanently affixed would be design restrictive. However, we stated in the enclosed final rule that stickers such as the placard required by paragraph S4.3, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, would be considered adequate.

You also asked "to whom is Part 575.105 directed (i.e., manufacturer, distributor, dealership)...(or) a seller of a used vehicle." The regulation applies to the manufacturer and seller of a new vehicle, not to a seller of a used vehicle. The regulation was issued under sections 103, 112 and 119 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C S1381, et seq. (hereinafter Safety Act). Section 103 authorizes NHTSA to issue and amend Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new mo tor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 112(d) (15 U.S.C. S1401(d)) authorizes NHTSA:

"(T)o require the manufacturer (of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment) to give such notification of such performance and technical data as the Secretary determines necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act in the followi ng manner --

(1) to each prospective purchaser of a motor vehicle or item of equipment before its first sale for purposes other than resale . . .; and

(2) to the first person who purchases a motor vehicle or item of equipment for purposes other than resale . . . .

Section 119 confers general rulemaking authority to issue rules to effectuate the express grants of authority and the obligations imposed by the Safety Act.

Sections 103, 112, and 119 of the Safety Act authorize NHTSA to require the consumer information label up to the delivery of the new vehicle to the consumer who first purchases the vehicle "for purposes other than resale." NHTSA cannot require sellers of used vehicles to restore missing labels prior to sale of the used vehicles, or prohibit a vehicle owner from removing or defacing the label.

You also asked for documents regarding the drafting and interpretation of Part 575.105. Please find enclosed copies of the following: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, dated December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58323); final rule, dated May 11, 1984 (49 FR 20016); fi nal rule, response to petitions for reconsideration, dated August 10, 1984 (49 FR 32069); and letter to Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq., dated August 15, 1984. For future reference, copies of NHTSA's interpretation letters can be obtained from the agency' s docket section. The address for the docket is 400 Seventh St., S.W., Room 5108, Washington, D.C., 20590, telephone (202) 366-4949.

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

ID: nht95-6.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 28, 1995

FROM: Lawrence A. Beyer, Esq. -- Attorney for Liphardt & Associates

TO: Administrator -- NHTSA

TITLE: Petition for Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/20/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO LAWRENCE A. BEYER (A43; REDBOOK 2; PART 556)

TEXT: This petition for inconsequential defect or noncompliance is submitted under 49 CFR Part 558, on behalf of:

Liphardt & Associates 15 Trade Zone Drive Ronkonkoma, NY

a New York State corporation.

[Illegible Lines]

The non-compliance relates to

49 CFR Part 592.5(f) Notification of change of facility information:

49 CFR Part 592.8(e) Hold period for inspection

49 CFR Part 592.6(f) Poor compliance photography

49 CFR Part 592.6(d) Label may not have correctly identified RI

BACKGROUND:

Liphardt & Associates has been a DOT Registered Importer since 1990, concentrating in the importation of noncomplying vehicles from Europe. However in 1994, due to sudden economic conditions, importation of vehicles from the Canadian market to the US market became viable, and there was significant need for Registered Importers to assist in vehicle importation and certification. The Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) was also deluged with Canadian vehicle importation situations. Liphardt was approached by a Customs House Broker in upstate New York, and was requested to set up an additional facility for the processing (modification, documentation and holding) of [Illegible Line] this facility. It turns out that Liphardt's control over these vehicles was lost, that the processing was handled by persons other than Liphardt authorized personnel and the inconsequential defect or noncompliance occurred. Liphardt notified OVSC of this situation in February, 1995 and conducted its own investigation. In March, 1995, Liphardt voluntarily suspended all Canadian importations, and met informally with NHTSA staff.

SAFETY COMPLIANCE

NHTSA has reviewed compliance packages submitted on these vehicles, and the vast majority have been deemed sufficient for release of compliance bond.

Canadian vehicles, for the most part, differ from US FMVSS only in the following areas:

1. Odometer may not be labeled KM;

2. Passive restraint systems for passenger cars;

Certification Labels must also be affixed to the vehicles in accordance with 49 [Illegible Word]

Many odometers are labeled KM by the original manufacturer. In any event, the odometer/speedometer is routinely changed to a miles based instrument, since the marketability of kilometer based vehicles is severely impaired. All passenger [Illegible Word] Certification labels may have misnamed the Registered Importer. While this in unfortunate, the purpose of naming the RI on the certification label is to ensure that the responsible RI is known for subsequent defect/recalls. OVSC maintains a very accurate computer system in which the VIN and the responsible RI are listed. Therefore, if a vehicle with the wrong name listed on the RI section of the certification label was involved in a situation where the actual RI needed to be involved, NHTSA could easily provide the correct RI name.

Clearly these defects and non-compliance are not significant and are inconsequential to vehicle safety. Liphardt has tried to work within the regulatory framework to advise OVSC of the situations and seeks this petition and exemption process to finalize this matter.

Liphardt has corrected the cause of the noncompliance and will continue to abide by the duties of a registered importer as defined in 49 CFR 592.

Thank you.