ID: nht94-2.27

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 8, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Perry McGlothan -- Quality Assurance Test Specialist, Century Products Company (Macedonia, OH)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/15/93 from Perry McGlothan to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 9495)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to me about the head impact protection and protrusion limitation requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. We received under separate cover the three child seats you sent for illustration purposes, samples of Models 4560, 4590 and the STE 1000.

You discuss in your letter a new method you would like to use to attach the head impact protection foam to the child restraint shell. The foam would be attached to the shell by means of two push-in pins, each 1/2 inch in length and with a 3/4 inch diame ter head, as distinguished from the padding being glued to the shell as in the past. You stated that this change would better secure the foam padding to the shell and help your manufacturing process. You asked us whether the new method would meet the h ead impact protection requirement of S5.2.3 (for restraints recommended for children weighing less than 20 pounds) and the protrusion limitations of S5.2.4.

As you know, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a self-certification system under which manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. We do not approve, endorse, or give assu rances of compliance of any product. NHTSA may examine the manufacturer's certification in the course of any enforcement action. In response to manufacturers' requests for interpretations of the FMVSS's, we try, to the extent possible, to provide infor mation that will help them make their determinations of compliance. However, these responses are based on information provided by the manufacturer, and it subject to the findings of actual compliance testing by the agency. Should the agency, in the fut ure, examine production units of these models and detect an apparent noncompliance or defect, those results will control.

You first inquire, "Please advise as to compression deflection," which we understand as asking whether S5.2.3.2 would permit you to secure the foam with the pins. (*1) S5.2.3.2 states that each system surface, except for protrusions that comply with S5 .2.4, which is contactable by a dummy head must be covered with slow recovery, energy absorbing material with specified characteristics. As explained in the next paragraph, the pins we examined appear to satisfy S5.2.4. Further, the pins might not be c ontactable by the dummy head in Standard 213's dynamic test. However, whether they are contactable can only be determined in the standard's dynamic test.

S5.2.4 requires that any portion of a rigid structural component within or underlying a contactable surface, or any portion of a child restraint system surface that is subject to S5.2.3 shall meet specified limits on height and radius of exposed edge. B ased on our visual inspection, the pins we saw appear

to be within those limits. Again, however, the Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility for determining compliance in the first instance on you, the manufacturer of the child restraint.

We still have the three seats that you sent us. We plan to dispose of them unless we hear from you.

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

* 1 We cannot tell you whether the foam padding would satisfy S5.2.3 of Standard 213. The compression deflection resistance and thickness of the material can only be determined in a compliance laboratory, using the laboratory procedures described in th e standard.

ID: nht95-2.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 2, 1995

FROM: Bonnie Ward -- Director of Transportation, Eagle County School District (Colorado)

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/2/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO BONNIE WARD (REDBOOK 2; PART 571); ALSO ATTACHED TO 5/28/85 LETTER FROM DIANE K. STEED TO GEORGE L. SIMONTON

TEXT: Dear Sir:

I am preparing a presentation for our district administrators detailing a comparison of the safety standards for over-the-road passenger buses versus school buses. I requested and received the enclosed letter from Charlie Hott, which is very informat ive about school buses, but gives very little information about over-the-road buses.

In a follow up conversation with Mr. Hott, he assures me that these regulations are above and beyond the requirements for over-the-road coaches. I would like this statement in writing. Any additional information you have concerning the safety standa rds for over-the-road coaches would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your information and support.

Enclosure (letter)

Ms. Bonnie Ward Eagle County School District P.O. Box 740 Eagle, CO 81631

Dear Ms. Ward:

Thank you for your recent inquiry about the differences in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) between over-the-road type buses and school buses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for establishing FMVSSs to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes, including those involving school buses and over-the-road type buses.

You stated in your letter dated March 20, 1995, that you wished a comparison between the crashworthiness of over-the-road buses and school buses. However, in a follow up conversation, you stated that a comparison of the FMVSSs would suffice because of t he lack of crash test data in that area.

In 1974 Congress directed NHTSA to establish or upgrade school bus safety standards in eight areas: Emergency Exits; Interior occupant protection; Floor strength, Seating systems; Crashworthiness of the body and frame; Vehicle operating systems; Windshields and windows; and Fuel systems.

As a result of the 1974 amendments to the Highway Safety Act, three new motor vehicle safety standards were established and four existing standards were amended. Standard No. 220, "School bus Rollover Protection" improved the structural resistance of sc hool buses in rollover-type accidents. Standard No. 221, "School bus Body Joint Strength" improved the strength of the joints between panels which make-up the school bus body. Standard No. 222, "School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection" improv ed the crash protection provided by school buses through a series of interior changes known as "compartmentalization" -- well padded, well anchored, closely spaced high-backed seats that are designed to absorb energy.

Standard No. 105, "Hydraulic Brake Systems" was amended to upgrade the requirements for hydraulic brakes on school buses. Standard No. 111, "Rearview Mirrors" was amended to establish requirements for cross-view mirrors on school buses. Standard No. 21 7, "Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release" was modified to require all school buses to be equipped with either a rear exit door or a side exit door and rear push-out window. Standard No. 301, "Fuel System Integrity" amended fuel system in tegrity requirements for large school buses. All of these requirements were effective for school buses manufactured after April 1, 1977.

Recently, there have been several additional changes to the FMVSSs for school buses. Additional emergency exits were required, depending on the capacity of the school bus. These exits included emergency exit doors, emergency roof exits, and emergency e xit windows. A standard that required stop signal arms on all school buses was implemented. The mirror standard was amended to require that the driver be able to see the area directly in front of and along both sides of the school bus. These last two standards were implemented to reduce the number of fatalities that occur outside the school bus, typically in the loading zone. School bus pedestrian fatalities account for the highest number of school bus related fatalities each year.

School buses must meet the above mentioned safety standards in addition to the FMVSSs that are applicable to over-the-road type buses.

In the legislative history of the School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, Congress stated that school transportation should be held to the highest level of safety, since such transportation involves the Nation's most precious cargo -- children who represen t our future. As a result, NHTSA believes that school buses should be as safe as possible. Under Federal law, dealers are prohibited from selling or leasing buses for use in transporting students to and from school and school-related activities, unless they comply with Federal school bus safety standards. Federal regulations do not prohibit the use of over-the-road buses by schools, but require any bus sold or leased for use as a school bus to meet the safety standards applicable to school buses.

School bus transportation has been and continues to be one of the safest forms of transportation in America. Occupant deaths in school buses per vehicle mile traveled are about one-fourth those for passenger automobiles. Every year, approximately 394,0 00 public school buses travel approximately 4.3 billion miles to transport 23.5 million children to and from school and school-related activities. Since 1983, on the average, 11 passengers per year have died in school bus crashes. While each of these f atalities is tragic, the numbers of fatalities among school bus occupants are small when compared to those in other types of motor vehicles. For example, in 1993, 3 children between the ages of 5 and 18 died in crashes of school-bus-body type vehicles. During the same year, 5357 children between the ages of 5 and 18 died as passengers or drivers in all other types of motor vehicles. School bus pedestrian fatalities account for the highest number of school bus related fatalities each year. There are about 30 such fatalities per year, about two-thirds of which involve the school bus itself and about one-third of which involve motorists illegally passing the stopped school bus.

I hope that this information is helpful to you. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me or Charles Hott, Safety Standards Engineer, at 202-366-0247.

Sincerely,

Leon DeLarm, Chief Pedestrian, Heavy Truck, and Child Crash Protection Division, NHTSA

ID: 10804RWKM

January 26, 1996

Mr. Bill Bristol Treadway America, Inc. 1633 East Vine Street, Suite 123 Kissimmee, FL 34744

Dear Mr. Bristol:

This responds to your request for a letter from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) stating that tires with the letters "DOT" molded onto or into the sidewalls comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). In the United States, Federal law requires tire manufacturers to certify that tires sold or imported into the United States comply with all applicable FMVSSs. There is no provision in the law for prior certification or approval by NHTSA, the United States agency responsible for the law's implementation. NHTSA enforces compliance with the safety standards by randomly inspecting tires and certification documentation, and by testing selected tires to ensure the validity of the tire companies' self-certification programs.

In response to your request, NHTSA states that all motor vehicle tires of any type or size manufactured by any of the following manufacturers and bearing the symbol "DOT" are recognized by the United States as having been certified by the manufacturers as being in conformity with all applicable FMVSSs:

Dunlop Tire Corporation (including Remington and Centennial) Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. Michelin (including PBM, Top A Private, Liberator, Defender, and Sears) General Tire (including Neral, GPX, HS Blem, and Semperit) Hercules (including Merit) Siam (including Mustang, Aswin, Extra Mileage, and Bus Special) Electra (including Esprit, Ironman, Turbo HP9000H, and Apache) Stomil (including Winchester) Vikrant

Any questions or requests for additional information regarding this matter may be directed to Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Ref:571 d:1/26/96

ID: nht88-1.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 1988

FROM: GARY EVANS -- PRESIDENT, WESTEX

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 7-18-88, TO GARY EVANS, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES-NHTSA

TEXT: I have had 3 conversations with individuals in different departments within the NHTSA. These conversations have resulted in a recommendation to contact the NHTSA Legal Department for advice.

Westex is an Importer and Distributor of automotive parts for German made vehicles. Among the many manufacturers we do business with are several companies which produce original equipment taillights, side reflectors and headlight assemblies. These firm s are very familiar with DOT, SAE, etc.

One of these firms produces Warning Triangles as described in FMVSS-125. As you may know, Warning Triangles are required in all vehicles (including cars) in Germany. This company has a new innovative patented technique which allows a Warning Triangle t o be attached to the side window of a car. This side-mounted Triangle is about 20% smaller than the specification shown in FMVSS-125.

This idea has evolved for use by the elderly, handicapped or individuals who are afraid or unable to leave their car. It does not give advanced warning as the Triangles placed along the road do. However, it does give motorists a warning (day or night) that the vehicle is stopped and advises the Police someone needs help.

I would like to import and sell this item here in the U.S. Before I do so, I would like to have some degree of comfort that the Triangle complies with any standards which may affect it.

FMVSS-125 states it does not deal with devices attached to the vehicle. Logically, I guess I am looking for the standard(s) which deals with warning devices that are attached to the vehicle without self-contained energy sources, if indeed such standards exist.

I would appreciate your earliest reply so I may proceed with the sales of this item.

ID: 08-000151 to Trinity-Noble

ID: 22060.ztv

Mr. Joel Martin
Malaguti USA
7368 NW 12^th St.
Miami, FL 33126





Dear Mr. Martin:

This is in reply to your undated fax to George Entwistle of this agency, received in August 2000, asking three questions about motorcycle importers.

These questions are:

"1.   Does NHTSA prefer one importer per brand or does it allow several importers to bring in the brand from the same foreign manufacturer."

The foreign manufacturer determines the number of importers of its product. The manufacturer does not consult with NHTSA on this matter, and NHTSA has no preference.

"2.   Second if testing for the importation of a motorcycle was paid for and done by one importer would another importer be allowed to use the same test results in order to verify compliance? In the case of the second importer would they have to provide their own test results if the first set of tests was privately owned and commissioned by the first importer?"

We are unsure of the basis for your question. A motorcycle, like other motor vehicles, must be manufactured to comply and be certified by its manufacturer, through a plate affixed to the vehicle, as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) in order to be imported into the United States. If the motorcycle is certified by its manufacturer, no further testing by any importer is required. If the motorcycle is not certified, it can only be imported for resale by a registered importer pursuant to 49 CFR Parts 591-594, after we have determined that the motorcycle is capable of being modified to comply with the applicable FMVSS.

We can interpret your question two ways. If the first importer conducts tests on behalf of the foreign manufacturer who then certifies its product on the basis of these tests before the vehicle is imported into the United States, a second importer does not have to test the product.

Our alternative response to your question assumes that the foreign manufacturer of the motorcycle has not certified it as meeting the FMVSS, that both importers have registered as importers under 49 CFR Part 592, and that we have decided, on the basis of a petition submitted by the first importer, as provided in 49 CFR Part 593, that the motorcycle is capable of being modified to meet all applicable FMVSS. As importers of motor vehicles for resale, each registered importer of the motorcycles becomes a "manufacturer" under our laws, responsible for compliance, certification, and notification and remedy when safety recalls are required. In filing its capability petition, a registered importer must establish the technical feasibility of modifying a vehicle to conform, but need not disclose the exact methods it will use to conform the vehicle. The information accompanying the petition is available in a public docket, and only rarely does a petitioner ask that portions of it be withheld from disclosure as confidential business information. To the extent that the first importer has disclosed conformance methods in the publicly available materials, a second importer may use this information in its own conformance operations without further testing.

In addition to affixing its certification label to a vehicle, a registered importer must also "certify" compliance to NHTSA, submitting information which may disclose the tests it conducted in conforming the vehicle. These submittals are not in a public docket and may be treated as confidential business information which is not available to other registered importers of the same vehicle. If the first importer chooses not to share test data and compliance methods with the second importer on a contractual or other basis, the second importer must independently develop its own conformance methods to assure the validity of its certification of the vehicle and to NHTSA.

"3.   I have noticed that there are three importers for the scooter brand Derbi in the United States, but that all three carry different lines of product from the same manufacturer. * * * Is this because of an NHTSA guideline for multiple importers for the same product?"

No. NHTSA has no "guidelines for multiple importers for the same product." In this instance, the manufacturer appears to have different agreements with each of the three importers of its products.

If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).





Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:592
d.11/9/00

ID: 21550pressureindicatorneb

Mr. Michael M. Anthony
President
Anthony Engineering & Technologies, Inc.
10189 W. Sample Road
Coral Springs, FL 33065

Dear Mr. Anthony:

This responds to your letter regarding regulations which may impact a tire pressure indicator.

You stated in your letter that your company is putting together a specification for an aftermarket tire pressure indicator ("indicator") that will indicate correct or low tire pressure on tires. A consumer would attach the tire pressure indicator to the tire valve in the same way a regular tire cap is attached. The material of the indicator will be a high strength high impact resistant "PET, similar to engineering plastics used for the beverage bottle industry for high pressure applications", which does not deteriorate with sunlight, smog, or humidity and will not break readily in a direct 50 mile per hour crash. You ask "whether there are any regulations that may impact the design of the indicator and what further considerations you may have deliberated in similar projects."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. For that reason, NHTSA neither tests, approves, disapproves, endorses, nor grants letters of approval of products prior to their introduction into the retail market. Rather, we enforce compliance with the standards by purchasing vehicles and equipment and testing them. We also investigate safety-related defects.

Turning now to the tire indicator, we would classify it as an item of motor vehicle equipment, defined in 49 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) 30102(a)(7)(B) as any "part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle." Specifically, the indicator is an accessory if it meets the following criteria:

1. A substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles; and
2. It is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

After reviewing your letter, we conclude that the tire indicator is an accessory. It was designed with the expectation that a substantial portion of its expected use will be with motor vehicles. Further, your description of the tire pressure indicator makes it clear that the indicator is intended to be purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles to monitor tire pressure.

While the indicator is a motor vehicle accessory, NHTSA has not issued any FMVSSs establishing performance standards applicable to this product. However, the manufacturer, whether you or a licensee, is subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121 (copies enclosed) which set forth the notification and remedy (recall) procedures for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. Thus, if NHTSA or the manufacturer determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge.

Additionally, 49 U.S.C. 30122 (copy enclosed) provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. Therefore, the tire pressure indicator could not be installed by any one of those entities if such use would adversely affect the compliance of a vehicle with any FMVSS. This provision does not apply, however, to equipment attached to or installed on or in a vehicle by the vehicle owner.

I note that the Department's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the U.S. You should contact that office at (202) 366-1790, for information about any requirements that may apply to your product. In addition, states have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions. You should therefore check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any state in which the equipment will be sold or used.

For your information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for new Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:109#110#117#119#120
d.5/10/00

ID: nht91-5.46

DATE: September 12, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Y. Endo -- Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co., Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-26-91 from Y. Endo to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 6187)

TEXT:

This responds to your June 26, 1991 letter (your reference ME-0172) asking about S5.3.4 (tensile strength requirement) of Standard 106, Brake Hoses. I am pleased to be of assistance.

Before answering your specific question, I would like to provide some background on our agency. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal regulations for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain new items of motor vehicle equipment (including brake hoses) sold in or imported into this country. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your hoses are installed on a new vehicle.) Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a noncompliance or defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.

You ask about S5.3.4 as applied to certain multi-section hydraulic hose assemblies. Each of these multi-section assemblies includes either two or three sections of hose, which are connected end-to-end. The sections of hose are connected to each other by an intermediate metal fitting. It is not clear from your letter whether the intermediate metal fitting is a single fitting or two fittings which are joined together. As discussed below, however, this would not affect the answer to your question with regard to tensile testing.

S5.3.4 states: "A hydraulic brake hose assembly shall withstand a pull of 325 pounds without separation of the hose from its end fittings." You state in your letter that there is a difference of opinion in your company as to this requirement. You believe that the requirement applies separately to each part of the multi-section assembly. Stated differently, you believe that the tensile test should be conducted for each section of hose with fittings at the ends. In contrast, others are of the opinion that the tensile test is conducted on the complete

combination assembly. Those persons believe that only the ends of the complete multi-section assembly, and not those of individual parts, need be fixed to the tensile test machine.

We agree with your view that each of the fitting-to-hose connections should meet the tensile strength requirement. The purpose of the tensile strength requirement is to ensure that a brake hose does not separate from its end fittings while in service. Under S5.3.4, all hydraulic brake hose assemblies must meet the tensile requirement. S4 of the standard defines "brake hose assembly" as: "a brake hose, with or without armor, equipped with end fittings for use in a brake system...." Each portion of the multi-section assembly which consists of a section of hose with fittings is considered a separate brake hose assembly under that definition. This is true regardless of whether the intermediate fitting is a single fitting or two fittings joined together. (In the former case, the single fitting would be considered an end fitting for each of two sections.) Thus, each such portion of the multi-section assembly must meet the tensile strength requirements. Requiring each individual portion to meet the requirements guards against assembly failures due to the separation of the hose from any of the fittings.

However, technically speaking, the test may be conducted by applying the load to either the complete assembly or to each of the intermediate hose and fitting assemblies. Both of the test methods would provide equivalent results. Under either test, the requisite tensile load would be applied to each of the fitting-to-hose junctures.

ID: nht90-4.72

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 3, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Malcolm B. Mathieson -- Vice President, Engineering, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-26-90 from M.B. Mathieson to E.Z. Jones (OCC 4598); Also attached to letter dated 3-30-90 from M.B. Mathieson to M.F. Trentacoste; Also attached to letter dated 8-8-89 from M.F. Trentacoste to K. Finkel; Also attached to letter dated 9-29-77 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to M.B. Mathieson; Also attached to letter dated 7-5-84 from F. Berndt to R. Marion; Also attached to letter dated 3-23-90 from A.H. Brett to M.B. Mathieson

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to former Chief Counsel Erika Jones concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217; Bus Window Retention and Release to school buses. I apologize for the delay in responding to your inqui ry.

Your letter expressed concern about a recent opinion from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) which states that school buses used in interstate commerce and thus subject to FHWA's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR's) are required by t he FMCSR's to comply with the provisions in Standard No. 217 applicable to buses other than school buses. Your letter included copies of a recent letter from Thomas Buses to FHWA on this issue, as well past interpretations by FHWA and this agency.

As you are aware, Standard No. 217 contains specific emergency exit requirements for school buses, as well as requirements for other buses. As noted in your letter to FHWA, and in our past interpretations, including the July 5, 1984 letter to Ron Marion that you enclosed, it is NHTSA's position that all buses sold as school buses must comply with the school bus requirements in Standard No. 217. We recognize that this position may conflict with FHWA's interpretation of their regulations, and we are seek ing resolution of this issue with FHWA to resolve any inconsistencies between the FMVSS's and the FMCSR's.

I hope you have found this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have further questions.

ID: GF009226

Mr. Siyamak Ahl
KMAK INT'L INC.
639 Maple Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90014

Dear Mr. Ahl:

This responds to your e-mail regarding requirements for brake pad importers. Specifically, you ask whether a brake pad importer must obtain DOT approval or certification. The answer is no.

Title 49, United States Code (U.S.C.), section 30101, et seq. (the Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

There is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) specifically applicable to brake pads. Instead, several FMVSSs regulate entire brake systems. Specifically, Standards No. 105, 121, 122, and 135 regulate brake systems for various types of motor vehicles. Vehicle manufactures are responsible for certifying that their vehicles comply with all applicable FMVSSs, including relevant brake system requirements. Accordingly, brake pad manufactures or importers are not directly responsible for any certification requirements.

We note that despite the fact that NHTSA does not directly regulate brake pads, any brake pad designed to be used on a motor vehicle is an item of motor vehicle equipment and is subject to the notification and remedy (recall) provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Enclosed please find an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:121
d.2/6/04