NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: 12535.ztvOpen Mr. Clive Rock Dear Mr. Rock: This is in reply to your email of October 1, 1996, asking two questions about rear lighting on motor vehicles. Your first question is why the agency has not required rear turn signals to be amber rather than allowing a manufacturer to choose between red and amber. Historically, red has been the color preferred by American manufacturers, while the practice in countries outside the United States has been to use amber. Intuitively it would appear that a separate amber lamp might provide a more effective signal than a red signal emitted by a combination stop/taillamp. However, Standard No. 108 compensates for a lack of separation in a rear combination lamp by requiring s the red turn signal have a higher candela than the taillamp to differentiate it, and specifies that the turn signal will override the stop lamp when it is activated. Although our field studies do show a very slight improvement in signal detectability when amber is used as a separate turn signal, the improvement is insufficient to warrant eliminating red as an acceptable color for rear turn signals, and requiring amber as the sole permissible color. Your second question is why the agency doesn't require taillamps to be at the outer extremities of vehicles. We are aware that it is the practice of some countries to specify dimensional locations for rear lamps (e.g., within 3 inches of the edge of the vehicle), but Standard No. 108 is drafted so as to afford a manufacturer freedom to locate rear lighting as the manufacturer chooses, within the broad directive that such lamps be "as far apart as practicable." This is the requirement for the location of rear stop, turn signal, and taillamps. A manufacturer may choose to stack the lamps or to locate two of the rear lamps inboard of the third. The agency will not contest the manufacturer's determination unless it is clearly erroneous. If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson of this Office will be pleased to answer them (202-366-5263) or email Tvinson@NHTSA.DOT.GOV. Sincerely, John Womack |
1996 |
ID: nht87-2.40OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 07/09/87 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Mr. Thomas Baloga TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Mr. Thomas Baloga Safety Engineering Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. P.O. Box 350 Montvale, NJ 07645 Dear Mr. Baloga: Thank you for your letter of May 28, 1987, to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the requirements of Standard No. 301 Fuel System Integrity. You noted that there is a conflict in the standard about the correct ground clearance of the contoured impact s urface used in the school bus impact test of the standard. You noted that S7.5.1 of the standard refers to the dimension between the ground to the lower edge of the impact surface as 5.25 + 0.5 inches, while Figure 2 of the standard shows dimension is 5. 25 + 0.5 inches. The agency adopted the use of the contoured barrier in a final rule issued on April 16, 1975. The preamble to the final rule stated that "The contoured barrier would incorporate the moving barrier specifications of SAE Recommended Practice J972a (March 1 973). However, the impact surface of the barrier would be at a height 30 inches above provision. Studies have shown that a 30-inch test height is more representative of actual collisions. This would be a typical engine height of vehicles that might impac t a schoolbus." Thus, in S75.1 of the standard, the agency adopted the ground clearance as 5.25 inches + 0.5 inches to ensure that the top of the barrier would be 30 inches from the ground. In Figure 2, the agency apparently incorporated the barrier dime nsions directly from the SAE Recommended Practice J972a, without changing the ground clearance dimension. We will publish an amendment to the standard that will correct the ground clearance dimension set out in Figure 2 of Standard No. 301. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel May 28, 1987 Mr. Steve Oesch Legal Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Subject: FMVSS 301 "Fuel System Integrity" Printing Error Dear Mr. Oesch: Mr. Bob Williams, Office of Rulemaking, has verbally confirmed that a printing error exists in Figure 2 of the subject standard. Specifically, Dimension D in Figure 2 should be 5.25 (inches) instead of 12.25. The correct 5.25 inch dimension is stated in the text within paragraph S7.5.1. Would you be so kind and confirm this printing error in writing; perhaps it can be incorporated into our other request concerning a printing error in FMVSS-208. Thank you very much for accommodating our requests. Sincerely, Thomas Baloga Safety Engineering (201) 573-2622 TCB/Wdo-M/A18 |
|
ID: nht78-2.23OpenDATE: 06/30/78 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA TO: Pupil Transportation TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 9, 1978, asking whether a school bus manufacturer may install strobe lights on the top of vehicles as original equipment, without violating Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. As you indicated in your letter of December 28, 1977, this would be permissible under local law. I informed you on February 14, 1978, in requesting a clarification, that legality depended on whether the additional lighting impaired the effectiveness of the required equipment. If so, paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 would prohibit installation. The lamps in question are strobe lights, either white or amber in color, that would be used during inclement weather. We do not know whether these lights would be used while the bus is in motion, or when it is stopped and the required schoolbus warning lamps are activated. If the strobe lights are used while the vehicle is in motion, during inclement weather, we do not know whether they would impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps by distracting the attention of a driver following the bus. If the light of the strobe lamp is white, and the light operates while the vehicle is at rest and its red or red and amber warning signals are also activated, the signals might prove confusing to other motorists. However, on the basis of the data presented, it is not possible to determine whether the strobe lamps would impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment within the meaning of S4.1.3. Therefore, we are willing to defer to the judgment of the State of Washington on this question, until such time, if ever, as data may be presented supporting a conclusion of impairment. SINCERELY, Superintendent of Public Instruction DR. FRANK B. BROUILLET March 9, 1978 Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Mr. Levin: In reply to your letter of February 14, 1978, it was our intent to request information about the use of strobe lights on school buses, as explained in the first sentence of my letter of December 28, 1977. I am sorry that I did not notice the incorrect word used in the second paragraph, which made it sound like a stop light attached to the top of the buses. In addition, your letter has asked for other information about "intended use of the strobe light". The intended color if used would be either amber or white, and it will not be located closely to any other clearance or other identification lamps. The strobe light nit itself has a lense size of approximately 3 to 4 inches. So far the information provided to this office does not rate strobe lights in terms of candle power output. I trust that this is sufficient information for you to answer my earlier request about the legality of a manufacturer installing the strobe lights and delivering them to school districts upon the school districts' request. DIVISION OF FINANCIAL SERVICES Don M. Carnahan, Supervisor Pupil Transportation |
|
ID: nht81-1.17OpenDATE: 02/19/81 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether certain flexible air pressure hoses for use on trucks would be subject to the requirements of Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. The hose in question would be used to transfer pressure from the air reservoir of the brake power assist unit (of the hydraulic service brake system) to a cylinder that actuates the exhaust brake control. Safety Standard No. 106 defines "brake hose" as: "A flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes." The hose that your company desires to use is not a part of the service brake system or the power assist system, either directly or indirectly. If pressure should be lost in the exhaust brake circuit of which the subject hose is a component, the loss would be isolated from the performance of the service and power assist circuits by means of a check valve. Therefore, the hose does not transmit the pressure or vacumm used to apply force to the vehicle's brakes, and it would not be considered a "brake hose" subject to the requirements of Safety Standard No. 106. Sincerely, ATTACH. MERCEDES - BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA. INC. December 17, 1980 OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Re: Request For Interpretation; FMVSS 106, Brake Hoses Dear Madam or Sir: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. hereby requests an interpretation as to whether or not certain flexible air pressure hoses proposed for use on our truck models would be subject to the requirements of FMVSS 106, brake hoses. The hose in question would serve to transfer pressure from the air reservoir of the brake power assist unit (of our hydraulic service brake system) to a cylinder that actuates the exhaust brake control. The brake power assist unit reservoir is protected against pressure loss in this exhaust brake circuit by means of a check valve located directly on the reservoir. All pertinent components are identified on the attached drawing No. BL046/80. Inasmuch as the hose used in this exhaust brake circuit is neither within the hydraulic service brake circuits, nor within the brake power assist unit circuit (air), and should pressure be lost in this exhaust brake circuit it would be isolated from the performance of the service and assist circuits by means of a check valve, Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. believes that this hose is not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 106. Should you have any questions regarding this request, do not hesitate in contacting this office, Best regards, HEINZ W. GERTH -- VICE PRESIDENT, ENGINEERING AND SERVICE |
|
ID: nht90-1.39OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: February 7, 1990 FROM: Dipl.-Ing. H. Westermann -- Hella KG Hueck & Co. TO: Richard van Iderstine -- Rulemaking Department., NHTSA TITLE: Request for written response - CHMSL unity. ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-21-90 To Taylor Vinson and From Dipl.-Ing. H. Westermann (OCC 4484); Also attached to letter dated 4-25-90 To Dipl.-Ing. H. Westermann and From Stephen P. Wood (A35; Std.108) TEXT: One of our customers prefers to place a logo within or in between the light emitting surface of a CHMSL. The enclosed sketches show two such designs: one for inside mounting behind the rear window (encl. 1), an other for top mounting on the trunk of a convertible (encl. 2). According to ECE Regulation 48, 5 2.14.2, a signalling lamp consisting of juxtaposed elements forms a single unit if the smallest rectangle circumscribing the several light emitting surfaces is occupied by not less than 60 percent of light emitting area. E/ECE/324 E/ECE/trans/505 Rev.1/Add.47 Regulation No. 48 page 6 2.14.2. "two lamps" or "an even number of lamps": a single light-emitting surface in the shape of a band or strip if such band or strip is placed the median longitudinal plane of the vehicle, extends on both sides to within at least 0.4 m of the extreme outer edge of the vehicle, and is not leas than 0.8 m long; the llumination of such surface shall be provided by not less than two light sources placed as close as possible to its ends; the light-emitting surface may be constituted by number of juxtaposed elements on condition that the projections of the several individual light-emitting surfaces ona transverse plane occupy not less than 60 per cent of the area of the smallest rectangle circumscribing the projections of the said individual light-emitting surfaces; In above design this requirement is fulfilled and the total area exceeds the required 4.5sq.inch. We ourself see no problem in such a design for a CHMSL since neither the signal configuration (triangle of stop lamps) nor acuity (by luminance and intensity) are affected. Since neither SAE nor FMVSS 108 yield a clear definition of signal unity if constituted of partial areas, we would like to learn whether NHTSA supports the ECE definition and can accept such CHMSL design as not violating the FMVSS requirements. A soon answer on this item is very much appreciated. Enclosures 2 Graphics Omitted. |
|
ID: nht90-4.70OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: December 3, 1990 FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Vice President-Engineering, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-10-90 from D.W. Vierimaa to P.J. Rice (OCC 5210) TEXT: This is in response to your association's request that this office review the most recent revision of the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association's (TTMA) Recommended Practice Number 56, "Trailer Vehicle Identification Number." After that review, we hav e the following comments. Please note, however, that these comments do not constitute any sort of NHTSA approval or endorsement of the TTMA's Recommended Practice. The TTMA Recommended Practice appears to provide correct information about NHTSA's vehicle identification number (VIN) requirements, as set forth in 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number-Content Requirements and Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identif ication Number-Basic Requirements (49 CFR S571.115). However, in several instances, the Recommended Practice goes beyond what is required by NHTSA's VIN regulations to recommend one particular means be used to assign a section of the VIN, when NHTSA's r egulations leave the assignment of that section to the discretion of the vehicle manufacturer. Examples of the TTMA recommendations going beyond the NHTSA regulations may be found in the explanations provided in Part 13.0 on the Vehicle Descriptor (Seco nd) Section Code, Part 14.0 Check Digit (Third) Section Code, and Part 15.0 Vehicle Indicator (Fourth) Section Code. While TTMA is free to make these recommendations, it may be helpful for your members to recognize the distinction between VIN informatio n that is required by NHTSA, and therefore must follow an exact format according to Federal law, as opposed to matters that are within the discretion of the assigner of the VIN, and for which the TTMA provides one suggested means by which the requirement (s) may be fulfilled. We offer the following comments on particular sections of this recommended practice: Part 6.0 Definitions The definitions of "body type," "line," "make," and "series" are not identical to the definitions in Title 49 CFR Part 565. In addition, since this section of your recommended practice states that the definitions in Part 6 "are used in NHTSA regulations ," you may wish to note that NHTSA does not define the terms "production sequence," and "type of trailer" in its regulations. Part 9.1 Location This part should note that 49 CFR Part 567.4(d) requires certification labels (which must include VINs) to be affixed "to a location on the forward half of the left side, such that it is easily readable from outside the vehicle without moving any part of the vehicle." Part 11.0 VIN Content You may wish to note that the content requirements in this part of the recommended practice are a paraphrase and explanation of NHTSA's VIN content requirements, set forth at 49 CFR Part 565 Vehicle identification Number-Content Requirements. 16.0 References Please note that the National Highway Traffic safety Administration has issued a VIN system information bulletin dated July 1985. I am enclosing a copy of it. Please feel free to reproduce this information and provide it to your members. They may also receive it directly from NHTSA by writing to us. If there are any further questions or concerns please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: 2775yOpen Mr. Donald W. Vierimaa Dear Mr. Vierimaa: This is in response to your association's request that this office review the most recent revision of the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association's (TTMA) Recommended Practice Number 56, "Trailer Vehicle Identification Number." After that review, we have the following comments. Please note, however, that these comments do not constitute any sort of NHTSA approval or endorsement of the TTMA's Recommended Practice. The TTMA Recommended Practice appears to provide correct information about NHTSA's vehicle identification number (VIN) requirements, as set forth in 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number-Content Requirements and Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number-Basic Requirements (49 CFR 571.115). However, in several instances, the Recommended Practice goes beyond what is required by NHTSA's VIN regulations to recommend one particular means be used to assign a section of the VIN, when NHTSA's regulations leave the assignment of that section to the discretion of the vehicle manufacturer. Examples of the TTMA recommendations going beyond the NHTSA regulations may be found in the explanations provided in Part 13.0 on the Vehicle Descriptor (Second) Section Code, Part 14.0 Check Digit (Third) Section Code, and Part 15.0 Vehicle Indicator (Fourth) Section Code. While TTMA is free to make these recommendations, it may be helpful for your members to recognize the distinction between VIN information that is required by NHTSA, and therefore must follow an exact format according to Federal law, as opposed to matters that are within the discretion of the assigner of the VIN, and for which the TTMA provides one suggested means by which the requirement(s) may be fulfilled. We offer the following comments on particular sections of this recommended practice: Part 6.0 Definitions The definitions of "body type," "line," "make," and "series" are not identical to the definitions in Title 49 CFR Part 565. In addition, since this section of your recommended practice states that the definitions in Part 6 "are used in NHTSA regulations," you may wish to note that NHTSA does not define the terms "production sequence," and "type of trailer" in its regulations. Part 9.1 Location This part should note that 49 CFR Part 567.4(d) requires certification labels (which must include VINs) to be affixed "to a location on the forward half of the left side, such that it is easily readable from outside the vehicle without moving any part of the vehicle." Part 11.0 VIN Content You may wish to note that the content requirements in this part of the recommended practice are a paraphrase and explanation of NHTSA's VIN content requirements, set forth at 49 CFR Part 565 Vehicle Identification Number-Content Requirements. 16.0 References Please note that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued a VIN system information bulletin dated July 1985. I am enclosing a copy of it. Please feel free to reproduce this information and provide it to your members. They may also receive it directly from NHTSA by writing to us. If there are any further questions or concerns, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:ll5#565 d:l2/3/90 |
1990 |
ID: 2912yyOpen Mr. B. Wendling-Malusev Dear Mr. Wendling-Malusev: This responds to your letter of March 5, 1991, requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems. Specifically, you requested an interpretation of the phrase "without manual assist" as used in section S4.3 of that standard. You stated in your letter that Transport Canada interpreted the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 103 in a way that is not used by U.S. testing facilities. Let me preface my discussion by stating that although the two standards may have identical wording, they remain different standards. Our interpretation relates only to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 103 and has no bearing whatsoever on Transport Canada's interpretation of their own standard. Section S4.3 of the standard, Demonstration procedure, incorporates the testing procedure of paragraphs 4.1 through 4.4.7 of SAE Recommended Practice J902 or J902(a) (J902). Paragraph 4.2.6 of J902 requires that the windshield wiper not operate during the test. Section S4.3(d) of Standard No. 103 is one of the listed exceptions to the J902 test procedure. S4.3(d) allows the use of windshield wipers during the test "if they are operated without manual assist." Section S4.3(d) does not define "manual assist." When terms used by a regulation are not defined by the regulation, the terms are defined by their common, everyday use. The Random House Dictionary of the English Language defines "manual" as "involving or using human power, energy, etc." That same dictionary defines "assist" as "to give support, aid, or help to." Given this definition, human power used to assist the functioning of the wipers, beyond turning the wipers on or off, is precluded by the standard. As your letter correctly states, prohibited "manual assist" would include such things as manually freeing the wipers of ice. This interpretation is supported by a consideration of windshield wiper system designs in use in 1968, the year in which the standard was promulgated. At that time, some vacuum and air-assisted windshield wiper systems were still in use. Having less power than electric windshield wiper systems, vacuum and air-assisted wipers were more susceptible to drag caused by ice on the windshield. Ice-induced drag severely limited the frost-clearing effectiveness of these wipers. The "manual assist" provision was intended to prohibit the use of human energy to overcome this disadvantage. The "manual assist" provision was not intended to prohibit those wipers being turned on or off by use of human power, as the wipers were designed to be used. Even today, except for the very few windshield wiper systems that operate automatically when they sense water or frost on the windshield, the vast majority of windshield wiper systems require manual switching to initiate operation. I hope that this information has been helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions. Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:103 d:3/29/9l |
2009 |
ID: 7748Open Mr. William G. Rosoff Dear Mr. Rosoff: This responds to your letter of September 18, 1992, forwarding a letter and documentation from Dr. Irina Elovaara. Dr. Elovaara imported a nonconforming motor vehicle into the United States around October 9, 1991, pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(d), and is requesting permission to keep it here longer than the one year that the regulation permits. You inform us that Customs does not have the authority to grant an extension or exception. Paragraph 591.5(d) permits nonresidents of the United States to temporarily import a nonconforming motor vehicle into the United States for a period not to exceed one year, provided that the importer will export it not later than the end of one year after entry. Dr. Elovaara, who holds a visiting fellow appointment at the National Institutes of Health, apparently must export her vehicle not later than October 9, 1992. However, her one-year appointment has been extended for three months, through December 31, 1992, and she wishes to keep her car here until that time. In the meantime, according to Dr. Elovaara, her car has been insured, inspected, and titled in Maryland, as well as passing an emission test. Paragraph 591.5(d) reflects this agency's attempt to accommodate the terms of the Customs Convention on the Temporary Importation of Private Road Vehicles, to which the United States has subscribed. Under the Convention, a contracting state shall allow nonresidents to import a motor vehicle for their private use on the occasion of a temporary visit without payment of import duties and import taxes and free of import prohibitions and restrictions, and the importation shall be covered by temporary importation papers. However, the period of validity of the temporary importation papers shall not exceed a year from the date of issue. Thus, under the Convention, a "temporary" importation would appear to be one that does not exceed a year. This is the genesis of our regulatory requirement that a nonresident, upon importing a nonconforming vehicle for private use, declare that the vehicle will be exported not later than a year after its entry, and the reason why the regulation contains no provisions for extension of a period beyond one year. Given the existence of the Convention, we believe you are correct in your conclusion that Customs has no authority to provide an extension or exception, and we have drawn the same conclusion as to the authority of this agency. The question becomes whether, in the absence of timely export of the vehicle, either agency effect to implement the remedies available to it. This is a matter within the general discretionary authority of each agency. The primary concern of this agency, as you know, is motor vehicle safety. Given the fact that Dr. Elovaara's vehicle has already been subjected to local registration, inspection, emissions and insurance laws, we do not believe that there would be any adverse impact upon safety if her vehicle remains in the United States for three additional months, even if that would constitute a technical violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We hope that this resolves Dr. Elovaara's concerns. Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:591 d:10/5/92 |
1992 |
ID: nht92-3.27OpenDATE: October 5, 1992 FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: William G. Rosoff -- Chief, Entry Rulings Branch, Department of Treasury, U.S. Customs Service TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/18/92 from William G. Rosoff to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC-7748) TEXT: This responds to your letter of September 18, 1992, forwarding a letter and documentation from Dr. Irina Elovaara. Dr. Elovaara imported a nonconforming motor vehicle into the United States around October 9, 1991, pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(d), and is requesting permission to keep it here longer than the one year that the regulation permits. You inform us that Customs does not have the authority to grant an extension or exception. Paragraph 591.5(d) permits nonresidents of the United States to temporarily import a nonconforming motor vehicle into the United States for a period not to exceed one year, provided that the importer will export it not later than the end of one year after entry. Dr. Elovaara, who holds a visiting fellow appointment at the National Institutes of Health, apparently must export her vehicle not later than October 9, 1992. However, her one-year appointment has been extended for three months, through December 31, 1992, and she wishes to keep her car here until that time. In the meantime, according to Dr. Elovaara, her car has been insured, inspected, and titled in Maryland, as well as passing an emission test. Paragraph 591.5(d) reflects this agency's attempt to accommodate the terms of the Customs Convention on the Temporary Importation of Private Road Vehicles, to which the United States has subscribed. Under the Convention, a contracting state shall allow nonresidents to import a motor vehicle for their private use on the occasion of a temporary visit without payment of import duties and import taxes and free of import prohibitions and restrictions, and the importation shall be covered by temporary importation papers. However, the period of validity of the temporary importation papers shall not exceed a year from the date of issue. Thus, under the Convention, a "temporary" importation would appear to be one that does not exceed a year. This is the genesis of our regulatory requirement that a nonresident, upon importing a nonconforming vehicle for private use, declare that the vehicle will be exported not later than a year after its entry, and the reason why the regulation contains no provisions for extension of a period beyond one year. Given the existence of the Convention, we believe you are correct in your conclusion that Customs has no authority to provide an extension or exception, and we have drawn the same conclusion as to the authority of this agency. The question becomes whether, in the absence of timely export of the vehicle, either agency effect to implement the remedies available to it. This is a matter within the general discretionary authority of each agency. The primary concern of this agency, as you know, is motor vehicle safety. Given the fact that Dr. Elovaara's vehicle has already been subjected to local registration, inspection, emissions and insurance laws, we do not believe that there would be any adverse impact upon safety if her vehicle remains in the United States for three additional months, even if that would constitute a technical violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We hope that this resolves Dr. Elovaara's concerns. |
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.