Interpretation ID: nht91-7.26

DATE: December 3, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Matthew J. Plache -- Esq., Gardner, Carton & Douglas

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter 10-17-91 from Matthew J. Plache to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6577)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an opinion of whether Daihatsu America, Inc. would be in violation of Federal law, including section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. S 1397(a)(1)(A)), if it were to sell Daihatsu HIJET vehicles in accordance with specifications contained in a recent Request for Bid issued by the City of Los Angeles. According to your letter, HIJETS are general purpose off-road utility vehicles that are not intended for use on the public roads, streets or highways and, as such, do not comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The City of Los Angeles Request for Bid, among other things, specifically required vehicles that are capable of being registered for street use in California and required the contractor to apply to register the vehicles and obtain license plates for them.

As discussed below, it is our opinion that it would be a violation of section 108(a)(1)(A) for a manufacturer or dealer to knowingly sell or offer to sell a HIJET vehicle to a customer for use on the public roads, streets or highways. A Request for Bid containing provisions similar to those set forth by the City of Los Angeles would indicate that the customer intends such use of the vehicle.

By way of background information, the issue of whether vehicles such as HIJETs are considered motor vehicles under the Safety Act was addressed by NHTSA in an October 31, 1988 interpretation letter addressed to Mr. Hiroshi Kato of Mitsubishi. That letter addressed the Mitsubishi SH27 lightweight industrial truck, which we understand, and you state, is very similar to the Daihatsu HIJET. At that time, Mitsubishi was considering whether to import the SH27.

In addressing the SH27, NHTSA noted that section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails." The agency has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold SOLELY for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. NHTSA has also concluded that vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles AND a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) are not considered motor vehicles.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary

and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, then NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." Further, the agency has determined that a vehicle such as a dune buggy is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicle is to be operated.

In addressing the SH27, NHTSA noted that the vehicle was not easily classified under these groupings. On the one hand, it has a body configuration nearly identical to standard trucks, can obtain a maximum speed of approximately 25 mph, and could be registered for use on the highways of several foreign countries. These factors suggested that the vehicle should be classified as a motor vehicle. On the other hand, Mitsubishi stated that the vehicle was intended to be used only for off-road applications, that it would be advertised and promoted for off-road purposes only, and that it would contain four warning labels stating "Warning: Off Road Use Only." These factors suggested that the vehicle should not be classified as a motor vehicle.

In instances where the agency is asked whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle when it has both off-road and on-road operating capabilities, and about which there is little or no evidence about the extent of the vehicle's on-road use, the agency has applied five factors in offering its advice. These factors are:

1. Whether States or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use.

2. Whether the vehicle is or will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it is or will be advertised exclusively for off-road use.

3. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers will assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use.

4. Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles.

5. Whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on the public roads.

Based on the representations in Mitsubishi's letter, NHTSA concluded that the SH27 did not appear to be a motor vehicle under the Safety Act. In addition to the other factors noted above which suggested that the SH27 should not be considered a motor vehicle, Mitsubishi had stated that its dealers would be instructed that the vehicle was to be used solely for off-road purposes-and that no assistance should be given to obtain a title for the vehicle or to register the vehicle in this country. NHTSA stated, however, that it would reexamine its conclusion if it learned,

for example, that the vehicle was in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of its owners.

With this background information in mind, I will now address your question whether Daihatsu America, Inc. would be in violation of Federal law, including section 108(a)(1) of the Safety Act, if it were to sell HIJET vehicles in Accordance with City of Los Angeles bid specifications that require vehicles that are capable of being registered for street use in California and require the contractor to apply to register the vehicles and obtain license plates for them. Section 108(a)(1)(A) reads as follows:

No person shall --

(A) manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard and is covered by a certification issued under section 114 . . . .

It is our opinion that it would be a violation of this section for a manufacturer or dealer to knowingly sell or offer to sell a HIJET vehicle (which does not comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards) to a customer for use on the public roads, streets or highways. The reason for this is that the only possible argument that a HIJET vehicle is not a motor vehicle is that it is intended solely for off-road use. The knowing sale to a customer for use on the public roads, streets or highways would nullify this possible argument. Moreover, a Request for Bid containing provisions requiring vehicles that are capable of being registered for street use in California and requiring the contractor to apply to register the vehicles and obtain license plates for them demonstrates that the customer intends such use of the vehicle.

Further, such action by Daihatsu or its dealers would demonstrate that HIJETs should be considered motor vehicles under the Safety Act and subject to Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I note that NHTSA's October 31, 1988 opinion that the similar Mitsubishi SH27 would not be considered a motor vehicle under the Safety Act was premised on certain representations by Mitsubishi. The knowing sale of such a vehicle to a customer for use on the public roads, streets or highways would be inconsistent with the representation that the vehicle was intended solely for off-road use. I also note that the provision in the City of Los Angeles Request for Bid requiring the contractor to apply to register the vehicle and obtain license plates for them is inconsistent with one of the specific understandings set forth in that opinion.

You stated that Daihatsu is concerned about this matter because it has recently received a number of similar solicitations for HIJET-like vehicles which could be interpreted as solicitations for on-road vehicles. You stated that because of its concerns about potential violations of Federal law, Daihatsu has refrained from submitting a bid in accordance with the City of Los Angeles request. You also expressed concern that

other suppliers of similar vehicles apparently do not share Daihatsu's concern and indicated that the Los Angeles contract was recently awarded to a supplier of the Mitsubishi SH27. Please be advised that we are referring your allegations to our Office of Enforcement to determine whether there has been a violation of section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act.

With respect to Daihatsu, I note that the receipt of a number of such solicitations may suggest a general perception that the HIJET is appropriate for on-road use. NHTSA has determined that a vehicle is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding appropriate use. Thus, if Daihatsu wishes to continue to classify the HIJET as a non-motor-vehicle, it should ensure that its customers do not plan to use them for on-road use.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this topic, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.