Pasar al contenido principal
Search Interpretations

Interpretation ID: 1984-4.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/18/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: U. S. Customs Service -- Paul Lorelli

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Paul Lorelli Office of Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures U. S. Customs Service 300 S. Ferry Street San Pedro, California 90731

This is in reply to your request to Taylor Vinson of this office; by telephone on October 31, 1984, for an interpretation of 19 CFR 12.80, and other matters.

Section 12.80(b)(ii) of the import regulations refers to technical noncompliance of a vehicle with Federal motor vehicle safety standards "because readily attachable equipment items which will be attached to the vehicle before it is offered for sale..." are not on the vehicle at the time it is offered for importation into the United States. You have asked the meaning of the phrase "readily attachable equipment items."

As Mr. Vinson explained to you, at the time the importation regulations were being developed, importers commented to the drafters that their practice was to remove certain items from the exterior of a vehicle prior to shipping to prevent breakage or theft. The items mentioned were windshield wipers, wheel covers, and exterior rear view mirrors. Therefore, the final rule took into account the importer's practice by allowing unrestricted entry of vehicles that complied with the exception of "readily attachable equipment items." As bumpers and headlamps are not readily attachable in the sense that wipers, mirrors, and wheel covers are, we do not consider these equipment items to qualify for the exception. Because sale of nonconforming new vehicles is a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a dealer who sells a car without the windshield wipers or mirrors attached would be subject to a civil penalty; as a practical matter, a new car won't be sold with such equipment items missing.

You also asked how we insure that a manufacturer continues to produce vehicles that comply with the safety standards. As Mr. Vinson explained, while we have authority to enter places where vehicles are produced or are being held for sale, we do not position inspectors in factories, nor require submission of compliance documentation to us before production commences. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a self-certification scheme under which a manufacturer must exercise due care in assuring the compliance of its vehicles with all applicable safety standards and must then attach a label to a vehicle at the completion of its manufacture certifying that compliance. The agency will purchase vehicles at random and test them for compliance. If a nonconformance is found, a manufacturer may be subject to civil penalties not only for the production of the noncomplying vehicle but also for providing certification that is false and misleading in a material respect. A tap civil penalty of $800,000 may be assessed for each of these violations. Further, a manufacturer of noncomplying vehicles is required to notify distributors, dealers, and purchasers of noncompliances, and to remedy the condition, by repair, repurchase of the vehicle, or replacement of it with an equivalent. The civil penalty sanctions and notification/remedy and requirements seem to have been successful in creating a climate under which manufacturers, on the whole, have met their obligations.

I hope that this information has been helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel