ID: nht92-3.5

DATE: 10/28/92

FROM: JANET TAYLOR -- MARKETING AND SALES MANAGER, A-PEX INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD.

TO: OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNCIL, NHTSA

TITLE: SUB: INQUIRY REGARDING THE STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF THE TAP ROOT EQUIPMENT STAND INTO A MOTOR VEHICLE (CAR, VAN ETC.).; REF.: OUR PHONE CONVERSATION WITH MR. EDWARD JETTNER, 10/28/92.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-28-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO JANET TAYLOR (A40; STD. 208)

TEXT: This letter serves to follow-up on the referenced phone conversation. We are a consulting firm that represents a manufacturer of a mechanical equipment stand, TAP ROOT EQUIPMENT STAND, that is installed into automobiles. Primarily, the use of the stand is for portable equipment such as laptop computers, facsimile machines, car phones, etc. Please refer to the attached drawing of the unit and installation instructions (with reference drawings, 3 pages).

This unit is intended to be sold to consumers after manufacture of a vehicle as additional equipment -OR- possibly this unit will be sold to fleet manufacturers as an accessory to the vehicle prior to reaching the showroom. At this time, the marketing efforts have been aimed to selling it to the consumer as additional equipment.

As indicated in the installation instructions, this is intended to be installed by "Joe Public" and it involves drilling a 1/2" hole in the floor pan of the vehicle.

Our inquiry to your office is the following: Is this product regulated is the USA? If YES . . . 1) How is it regulated? What are the specific requirements/standard #? 2) How may we obtain these requirements? 3) What type of paperwork, testing/evaluation is needed? 4) What agency would we contact for this matter? 5) What is the estimated cost and time for this type evaluation? 60 Can we evaluate and "self-certify" this product to these regulations? **

** Note: Our firm, A-PEX, is a consulting firm with a testing laboratory (do not have NRTL status) that specializes in assisting manufacturers in meeting product safety requirements (e.g. UL, FCC requirements.)

We would greatly appreciate your written response to the above matter as soon as possible. Our client is eager to meet the appropriate safety regulations and bring his evaluated product to market.

If you have any questions or comments to the enclosed, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

ATTACHMENT TAP ROOT EQUIPMENT STAND INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS (TEXT AND PHOTOS OMITTED.)

ID: nht92-3.50

DATE: September 17, 1992

FROM: John D. Dingell -- Chairman, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce

TO: Marion C. Blakey -- Administrator, NHTSA

COPYEE: Aaron Gordon

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/9/92 from Marion C. Blakey to John D. Dingell (A40; Std. 222)

TEXT:

Enclosed is a letter I received from Mr. Aaron Gordon about seat belts for school buses. The writer refers to H.R. 896. I request your comments, including comments on the bill. Please provide a copy of your reply to Mr. Gordon.

Enclosure Letter dated February, 1992 from Aaron Gordon to John Dingell:

Dear Honorable John Dingell,

My name is Aaron Gordon. I'm a fourth grader at Leewood Elem. School. For the last two years I have been researching seat belts on school buses. I designed a double shoulder harness that the Committee of Transportation of Florida has appropriated $25,000 to research my design.

Congressman Andy Jacobs Jr., from Indiana has writen a bill (H.R. 896) that I support. I know of your (words illegible) of the safety of children. I'm requesting the opportunity to speak on this issue, before Congress or (word illegible) committee (words illegible) public hearing is held on this bill.

Please let me know when this will take place.

ID: nht92-3.6

DATE: 10/27/92

FROM: J. LESLIE DOBSON, OWNER, MCKINNEY VEHICLE SERVICES

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-20-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO J. LESLIE DOBSON (A40; PART 567); ALSO ATTACHED TO 3-19-91 LETTER FROM PAUL RICE TO JERRY TASSAN (PART 567); ALSO ATTACHED TO 7-1-92 LETTER FROM PAUL RICE TO GENE FOUTS

TEXT: We are a small business engaged in the rental of trucks in Los Angeles, California. We have approximately 50 Bobtail trucks with a gross vehicle weight, ("GVW"), of 28,000 pounds each. Recently, the licensing laws in the State of California were changed to require a special class of driver's license for vehicles with a GVW in excess of 236,00 pounds. This has resulted in a dramatic decrese in our rental business, since many of our small customers do not possess such a license.

We believe that a reclassification of our Bobtail trucks to a GVW of less than 26,000 pounds would not adversely effect safety. The California driver's license requirement was intended to ensure that drivers of large commercial vehicles were specially trained. However, with Bobtail trucks, no special training is required for their safe operation. Indeed, over the last decade, we have had an excellent safety record with these vehicles. Our Bobtail trucks have only two axles and cannot carry large amounts of weight. They are traditionally used for local furniture delivery and for similar purposes. The boxes and flatbeds on our trucks are only 22 feet in length and they are incapable of towing a trailer.

Therefore, we would request your advice and assistance in how we would go about having these Bobtail trucks reclassified at 26,000 GVW. Would you be so kind as to contact me with some direction as to how we should proceed.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation and assistance.

ID: nht92-3.7

DATE: 10/26/92

FROM: KENNETH W. WEBSTER II -- PROJECT ENGINEER, TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH CENTER, INC.

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-24-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO KENNETH W. WEBSTER II (A40; STD. 124)

TEXT: Thank you for your response concerning the FMVSS 114. We appreciate the time an efforts of the Chief Council to reach a decision concerning the letters we have mailed recently. This correspondence should be the our last request for the present time.

This correspondence is a request for clarification of CFR Title 49, Part 571.124, Paragraph S5 (FMVSS 124, "Accelerator Control Systems"). The Transportation Research Center Inc. (TRC) has performed the FMVSS 124 tests on passenger cars at the lowest extreme temperature of -40 degrees F. In some cases it becomes very difficult or impossible to start a test vehicle after a 12 hour soak at -40 degrees F. Paragraph S5 specifies that the engine must be running under any load condition during the test performance. If all cold starting improvements have been incorporated but the engine will not start at the -40 degrees F test condition, which of the following would be correct:

(1) Test with engine not running at the -40 degrees F test condition.

(2) Raise temperature until engine will start. Record test temperature and perform test.

If number one is correct, does the vehicle fail if the time is greater than the requirement even though the vehicle meets the requirement at a slightly higher temperature with the engine running?

If number two is correct, what would be the allowable low temperature range in which the vehicle must be started and tested to check compliance?

If neither is correct, please indicate proper measures that must be taken in this situation. A manufacturer has indicated that the "due care" clause is not an acceptable explanation of actions to take in this case.

Please provide TRC a response in writing, regarding the Chief Council's position. If you have any questions or require further information before you can determine a position, please contact the undersigned at (513) 666-2011. We thank you in advance for your expeditious reply.

ID: nht92-3.8

DATE: 10/24/92

FROM: GEORGE D. JAMES, JR. -- SAFETY CHAIRMAN, UNIT 169 WBCCI

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL D.O.T.

TITLE: TEKONSHA COMMANDER & VOYAGER ELECTRONIC BRAKE CONTROL ("CONTROL")

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-4-92 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD TO GEORGE D. JAMES, JR. (A40; STD. 108)

TEXT: I respectfully suggest that you have been hornswoggled by TEKONSHA into approving their electronic brake controllers for trailers.

You say that "IT IS THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE THAT THE CONTROL WILL NEVER BE OPERATED DURING THE LIFE OF THE TOWING VEHICLE."

Mr. Rice, that is WRONG!

Any Travel Trailer tow car driver who has any experience uses brake "controller only" WHENEVER he tows a trailer.

First, he uses the CONTROLLER ONLY to check his trailer brakes to be sure they ARE OPERATING. If this is done on the highway, the trailer stop lights should come on for his safety and safety of any following vehicle.

Second, he uses the CONTROLLER ONLY any time the trailer is PUSHING THE TOW CAR (down hills, approaching intersections, and especially when conditions are less than perfect (rain, snow, ice, gravel and sand) to keep the trailer from trying to pass the tow car.

The trailer stop lites should come on in such a situation.

Third, using CONTROLLER ONLY is an effective way to recover from a "sway situation" and when this is done the trailer stop lites should come on.

An experienced trailer tower also knows that under no circumstances should he lock the wheels of the trailer with his brakes. To safely operate a brake system on a tow car/trailer combination one must PRACTICE. Frequent practice prepares the operator for safe action when the need arises.

And trailer stop lights should go on even when practicing.

A sensitive, PRACTICED hand on a good controller is the only route to safe driving. User reports indicate that these Tekonsha controllers are an excellent device in all respects EXCEPT that the TRAILER STOP LITES are not activated whenever the CONTROLLER ONLY is used.

AND THIS IS NOT SAFE OPERATION.

I have over 200,000 miles on my present Airsteam Travel Trailer - without any accidents, thank the Lord (and my brake controller.) I use my CONTROLLER ONLY every time we go on the highway - and MY trailer stop lites work every time. I would not go on the highways if it didn't.

Mr. Rice, I think your people should review your thinking and rewrite the specs on this matter. And I think that TEKONSHA should redesign their controllers AND recall those that have been delivered to dealers or installed on tow cars.

ID: nht92-3.9

DATE: October 23, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: A. Mary Schiavo -- Inspector General for the Department of Transportation

COPYEE: Gerard Tucker -- Special Agent, DOT Office of Inspector General

TITLE: None

TEXT:

Special Agent Gerard H. Tucker, Jr. of your staff asked me to provide you with some information about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's regulations dealing with certification and vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. This information should prove helpful in connection with an investigation of Bus Industries of America by your office in which Mr. Tucker has been involved.

Mr. Tucker presented the following facts. A Canadian company (Ontario Bus Industries, Inc.) manufactured some buses at its plant in Canada. It certified these buses as conforming with all U.S. vehicle safety standards and affixed a label to that effect, in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. These buses were then imported into the United States bearing the certification label that had been affixed by the Canadian manufacturer. After the vehicles were imported into the United States, the U.S. company that had imported the buses (Bus Industries of America) removed the Canadian manufacturer's certification label and affixed a new certification label that identified the U.S. company as the manufacturer of these buses. With respect to the information other than the name of the manufacturer, the certification label substituted by the importer was identical to the certification label affixed by the Canadian manufacturer.

Mr. Tucker asked us to explain this agency's certification regulations as they apply to vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, and to comment on the assertion that the certification label placed on the buses by the Canadian manufacturer did not meet this agency's certification requirements. I am pleased to have this opportunity to do so.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 includes the following provision at 15 U.S.C. 1403:

Every manufacturer or distributor of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment shall furnish to the distributor or dealer at the time of delivery of such vehicle or equipment by such manufacturer or distributor the certification that each such vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. ** In the case of a motor vehicle such certification shall be in the form of a label or tag permanently affixed to such motor vehicle.

NHTSA has issued a regulation (49 CFR Part 567) specifying the content and location of, and other requirements for, the vehicle certification label or tag required by this statutory provision. That regulation is relatively straightforward with respect to vehicles produced by a single manufacturer. The manufacturer must permanently affix a label containing specified

information, including the name of the manufacturer, the date of manufacture, the vehicle identification number, and a certification that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, in a specified location on the vehicle.

The certification regulation becomes more complex in the case of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages and certified vehicles that are altered before they have been sold to the public for the first time. In those situations, there is more than one manufacturer's input needed for the certification of the finished vehicle. Accordingly, NHTSA has included special provisions in Part 567 specifying the certification requirements for these vehicles and adopted a separate regulation at 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, specifying the responsibilities of the various manufacturers in ensuring conformity of the completed vehicle with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

With respect to the Canadian buses described by Mr. Tucker, those vehicles appear to fall into the category of vehicles produced by a single manufacturer. The relevant certification requirements for such vehicles are set forth at 49 CFR S567.4. It appears that the Canadian company in this case followed those requirements and affixed a label in accordance with S567.4.

Mr. Tucker indicated that Bus Industries of America had argued that it was required to affix its own certification label for two different reasons. First, for some of these buses, Bus Industries of America had produced various component subassemblies (e.g., frame, drivetrain, etc.) and shipped those component subassemblies to Canada to be used in manufacturing these buses. Because of this, Bus Industries of America argued that it had to certify the vehicles in its capacity as the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle.

It is true that 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568 impose responsibilities on incomplete vehicle manufacturers, and even allow incomplete vehicle manufacturers to assume legal responsibility for the completed vehicle. See S567.5(e) and S568.7(a). However, a party that ships various component subassemblies to another party would not be an incomplete vehicle manufacturer for purposes of NHTSA's certification regulations. The following definitions appear in S568.3:

Incomplete vehicle manufacturer means a person who manufactures an incomplete vehicle by assembling components none of which, taken separately, constitute an incomplete vehicle.

Incomplete vehicle means an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

Reading these definitions, it is apparent that a party could not be considered an incomplete vehicle manufacturer if that party simply produced

certain component subsystems and shipped those subsystems off to another party to assemble into a motor vehicle. Based on the facts Mr. Tucker provided this office, the claim that Bus Industries of America should be considered an incomplete vehicle manufacturer of these buses has no merit.

Second, Mr. Tucker indicated that Bus Industries of America argued that it had to certify some of these buses because that company had performed minor finishing operations on some buses after it received them from Canada. It may be that Bus Industries of America is suggesting that it should be considered to be a final stage manufacturer of these vehicles, and therefore was responsible for certifying these vehicles per 49 CFR 567 and 568. Alternatively, Bus Industries of America may have been suggesting that it should be considered an alterer of these vehicles, and therefore required to certify them. Neither one of these arguments is supported by the facts.

A final stage manufacturer is defined at 49 CFR S568.3 as "a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle." The relevant question then is whether these buses were incomplete vehicles. As specified in the definition of "incomplete vehicle" quoted above, a vehicle that needs only minor finishing operations is not considered an incomplete vehicle. Instead, only those vehicles that need some further manufacturing operations to perform their intended function are considered incomplete vehicles. Since the buses in question had been certified by the Canadian manufacturer as completed vehicles and driven over the public roads from the Canadian plant to the U.S., there is no indication that the buses needed some further manufacturing operations to perform their intended function. Hence, Bus Industries of America was not a final stage manufacturer of those vehicles.

To the extent that Bus Industries of America wishes to be considered an alterer of a previously certified vehicle, 49 CFR S567.6 expressly sets forth requirements for persons that alter vehicles by performing minor finishing operations. That section provides: "A person ... who alters such a vehicle only by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, in such a manner that the vehicle's stated weight ratings are still valid, need not affix a label to the vehicle, but shall allow a manufacturer's label that conforms to the requirements of this part to remain affixed to the vehicle." The sample of the Canadian manufacturer's certification label that Mr. Tucker provided this office conforms to the requirements of Part 567. Hence, even if one accepts the argument by Bus Industries of America that it performed minor finishing operations on previously certified vehicles, it would have still been subject to an express regulatory duty to leave the Canadian manufacturer's certification label in place.

The final point I understand Bus Industries of America to be raising was that only a U.S. manufacturer could certify that a vehicle met the U.S. safety standards. This point is incorrect. A vehicle to be imported into the U.S. must be certified as conforming with all U.S. safety standards before it enters the United States. Such a certification is routinely made by manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States. There is no regulation or law administered by this agency that requires the certification to be made only by a U.S. company.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please let me know.

Attachment

BUS INDUSTRIES OF AMERICA INC.

PRESENTED TO: NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

PRESENTED BY: OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Gerard H. Tucker, Jr. Special Agent (215) 337-2725

SUMMARY

Background and history of Bus Industries of America, Inc. (BIA)

Allegations:

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 BIA provided a false statement to the government by certifying that they would meet the Buy America pro- vision of Section 165(b)(3) of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1982

Title 18, United States Code, Section 542 BIA attempted to introduce imported merchandise into the commerce of the U.S. by means of a false or fraudulent statement

Title 19, United States Code, Section 1304 tampering with, or removal of Manufacturers Label of Origin

Chronology of events leading to allegations

Defense Counsel (ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT) assertions

Assistant United States Attorney's request for clarification from NHTSA

ATTACHMENTS

1. Title 18 U.S.C. 542 2. Excerpts from defense counsel brief 3. Excerpt from interview of Keith Sheardown 4. Ontario Bus Industries Label of Origin 5. Bus Industries of America Label of Origin 6. 49 C.F.R. 567, 568 7. Title 15 U.S.C. 1403

(Remainder of text is omitted.)

ID: nht92-4.1

DATE: 09/17/92

FROM: TIM BOHN -- PORTEC, INC.

TO: CHIEF COUNCILS OFFICE, NHTSA

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-10-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE (SIGNATURE BY JOHN WOMACK) TO TIM BOHN (A40; VSA 102(3)

TEXT: We are manufacturer of construction equipment located in the Midwest. As a manufacturer, we are concerned with equipping brakes on the wheels of the portable equipment we manufacture.

Much of the equipment we manufacture is transported by towing over public roadways and highways. Although this equipment is transported over public roads, it is usually done so only between job sites and occasionally from the factory.

We need to know if there are any regulations, laws or standards that could be interpreted as applying to the use of brakes on this type of equipment.

Any information or direction you could provide us on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht92-4.10

DATE: September 12, 1992

FROM: Mindy Lang -- Division Manager, Huntleigh Transportation Services, Inc.

TO: Office of Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/20/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Mindy Lang (A40; Std. 207)

TEXT:

I am writing to you regarding the regulations governing vehicle conversion. We are interested in bus conversions. We are wanting to do conversion work to the interior of existing buses that have been manufactured by certified bus builders such as Supreme Corp. and Goshen Coach both out of Indiana.

We would be converting the interior only of the finished bus. Such conversions would include carpets, wallcovering, headliners, blinds on the rear windows etc. all of the materials used are for the automotive, RV, and Marine industry. All of which have the proper ratings for this application. My main question is concerning the seating arrangments and requirments for attaching the frames structurally. and any requirements for materials used in the constuction of the seats.

Please forward any information that applies to these conversions. and any legal consideration we need to be concerned with.

Again, we do not modify the structural part of the vehcile at all. Thanks for your time in this matter. If you have any question please feel free to contact me at 1-800-966-2777.

ID: nht92-4.11

DATE: September 11, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Arye Addady -- Maaco

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/22/92 from Arye Addady to U.S. Dept. of Transportation, NHTSA (OCC-7582)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of July 22, 1992, concerning an invention that you are developing. You stated that your idea would involve installation of a device in the hydraulic brake system of a vehicle and asked whether permission is required from our agency. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new 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. Manufacturers are not required to seek permission from NHTSA, and this agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the Safety Act, the manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its motor vehicles or equipment meet applicable standards.

I am enclosing a pamphlet which provides information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. I am also enclosing copies of a January 4, 1985, letter to Deco International Corporation, and a January 5, 1982, letter to Cariben, Inc., which discussed Federal requirements applicable to certain aftermarket devices that were installed in the braking systems of vehicles.

I hope this information is been helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-4.12

DATE: September 9, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas E. Wilde

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/28/92 from Thomas E. Wilde to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC-7603)

TEXT:

This responds to your July 28, 1992 letter asking for information on any Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to retrofit air bags. Your letter states that these devices are intended for vehicles which do not have factory-installed air bags. I note that your letter was stamped confidential; however, in a phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you indicated that you did not object to your letter being placed in our public docket.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208). Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, that passenger cars provide automatic crash protection. Light trucks will also be required to provide automatic crash protection beginning with the 1995 model year. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test.

At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific design of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. Instead, each automobile manufacturer is allowed to select the particular design for the automatic crash protection installed in its vehicles. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used).

Please note that the automatic crash protection requirement applies to the performance of the vehicle as a whole, instead of setting requirements for the air bag as an individual item of equipment. This approach permits vehicle manufacturers to "tune" the performance of the air bag to the crash pulse and other specific attributes of each of their vehicle models. However, this approach also means that the Federal standards do not specify specific performance attributes for air bags such as inflated dimensions, actuation time, and the like. Hence, there are no specific performance attributes with which retrofit air bags must comply.

The only Federal requirement that might affect a retrofit air bag would be

the "render inoperative" prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

With regard to retrofit air bags, the existing safety belts (in a vehicle not already equipped with an air bag) are a "device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." If a retrofit air bag installed by a commercial business interferes in any way with the performance of the safety belt system, it would violate the "render inoperative" prohibition.

You should also note that a retrofit air bag would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Therefore, if the air bag contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, you would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge.

I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment that briefly explains the responsibilities imposed on manufacturers, and tells how to get copies of the relevant laws and regulations.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.