Skip to main content
Search Interpretations

Interpretation ID: nht93-2.19

DATE: March 18, 1993

FROM: Philip Trupiano -- Auto Enterprises, Inc.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Office of Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-31-93 from John Womack to Philip Trupiano (A41; Part 592)

TEXT: Pursuant to our phone conversation of this date, I now write to you seeking a interpretation of Sec S92.6 and 7 and the application of those sections to a proposed vehicle entry under the Registered Importer (RI) program. The facts for the proposed importation are as follows:

1. The vehicle is a 1984 Ford 9000 heavy duty truck. A current Canadian safety certification obtained from the required annual safety inspection exists. Ford Motor Company has already supplied verbal notice and a written letter stating the compliance of this truck with the U.S. FMVSS. Because this is obviously a commercial vehicle, NHTSA's policy does not allow entry under the personal use program; an RI is necessary.

2. The owner of the vehicle, a farming and trucking operation, is in North Dakota. The vehicle is currently in Manitoba, just above the North Dakota border. The proposed port of entry would be on the North Dakota/Canadian border, at least 2000 (driving) miles away from Detroit, Michigan where we are located.

3. Because of the distance involved, we propose to facilitate the entry my mailing the previously prepared (by Auto Enterprises) RI Certification Label to our customs broker (and authorized agent who already has our Power of Attorney) at the port of entry so that he can affix the label and take the appropriate photographs. The same customs broker is also acting on our behalf in filing the necessary Customs documents. The photographs would then be returned to us for subsequent inclusion with our Statement of Conformity and request for bond release which will be sent to NHTSA. We now ask your interpretation of the regulations to determine whether we, as the RI, using this arrangement, satisfy the requirement of 692.6(d).

4. The language in our present contract with the Importer (owner) states that the Importer "agrees not to sell, lease, title or register the vehicle or operate the vehicle on public roads prior to the issuance of DOT bond release".

Due to the logistics of the distances involved, the holding area and available inspection site for this proposed entry would be the Importer's company lot. The Importer would physically be unable to license or title the truck (due to lack of the necessary Customs Form 7501 or DOT release which must be supplied to the State licensing bureau) prior to actual DOT release or the expiration of the proscribed 30 day period. Since only Auto Enterprises has access to the Customs Form 7501 (Commercial Entry), our ability to withhold this important document would preclude licensing or titling (and, thus the ability to operate the truck) in any State. In view of these facts, we now ask your interpretation of the regulations to determine whether we, as the RI, using this proposed entry arrangement, satisfy the requirement of 591.8(d)(3) and

592.8(a).

To this date, Auto Enterprises has not made any entries with circumstances similar to those above. However, the party described above is waiting on a determination of these issues so that we may enter his truck as immediately as circumstances permit. We believe that a determination which is unfavorable would create an unnecessary economic hardship on the Importer as he would have to drive or transport the truck an additional 4000 miles for entry and storage in Detroit. Further, as the original manufacturer, Ford Motor Company, has already issued a letter stating compliance, this vehicle would otherwise be eligible for importation without an RI if this were a personal use basis. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (313) 589-3600. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. We await your reply.

Attached to letter dated 9-17-92 from Holt M. Johnston, Ford Motor Company, to Peter Fehr, Flexi-Coil Limited, re: FMVSS 108 and FMVSS 121. Also attached to Louisville Truck Centre Work Order re: FMVSS 121.

(Text omitted.)