ID: nht90-3.9

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 10, 1990

FROM: Jeffrey P. Henderson -- Project Supervisor, Toy Laboratory, ACTS Testing Labs, Inc.

TO: Paul J. Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-3-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Jeffrey P. Henderson (A37; Std. 213; Std. 302)

TEXT:

This letter is regarding whether plastic pouches that contain instruction sheets are applicable to the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 302 (MVSS 302).

In a conversation with Dee Fajita of N.H.T.S.A, she stated an interpretation has been made regarding instruction sheets as being not applicable to the requirements of MVSS 302, however, she was unaware of an interpretation regarding plastic pouches (simi lar to plastic sandwich bags).

Can you please determine whether a plastic pouch which may or may not be permanently attached to a child's car seat is applicable to the requirements of MVSS 302.

Thank you for your time and response.

ID: nht72-4.14

DATE: 09/08/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 22, 1972, regarding the applicability of the requirements of S5 and S6 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 to trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles conforming to S4.3.2 and to buses conforming to S4.4.2 of the standard.

Although sections S6.2 and S6.3 have been amended to refer to belt systems, the reference applies only to vehicles that are required by S4 to meet the injury criteria by use of seat belts. Vehicles manufactured under the options of S4.3.2 and S4.4.2 are not required by the terms of those sections to meet either the occupant crash protection requirements of S5 or the injury criteria of S6. Such vehicles are therefore not affected by the amendments to S6.2 and S6.3, and continue to be exempt from compliance with S5 and S6.

ID: nht88-1.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/19/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: EDWIN SPEAS, JR. -- SPECIAL DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 7-7-87, FROM LACY H. THORNBURG & EDWIN M. SPEAS, TO ERIKA Z. JONES-NHTSA

TEXT: I am responding to your letter of July 7, 1987, where you ask for some assistance with an issue facing your State's public school systems. You stated that some school systems have purchased vans that do not meet Federal school bus specifications. The s chool systems use these noncomplying vans primarily to transport school teachers and administrators, but the vans sometimes are used to transport students to extracurricular activities.

You ask two questions. The first question is whether Federal law prohibits a school system from using a van to transport students to extracurricular activities if the van does not meet Federal school bus standards. The second question is whether the Se cretary of Transportation has adopted a regulation defining the term "significantly" as that term appears in 15 U.S.C. @ 1391(14).

The 1974 amendments to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act or VSA) apply to any person manufacturing or selling a new "school bus." NHTSA defines "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold or introduced into interstate commerce for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. The VSA does not regulate the manner in which a person, including a school district, uses a vehicle it purchases. Therefore, the answer to your first question is that Federal law does not prohibit a school district from transporting students in a noncomplying vehicle.

On the other hand, the seller of these vans may have sold them in violation of Federal law if the seller had reason to know from factors such as the identify or activities of the purchaser that the purchaser intended to use or convert the vans to school buses. When NHTSA proposed to amend the definition of "school bus" in consequence of the 1974 VSA amendments, we anticipated that there may be circumstances in which a manufacturer has no reason to know that one of its dealers has sold one

of its vehicles as a school bus. The agency expressly stated in the preamble to the proposal that if a dealer knowingly sold any multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) or bus capable of being converted and used as a school bus to a school or a school bus contract operator, then the dealer would be responsible for certifying the vehicle's compliance with school bus standards. 40 FR 40854, September 4, 1975.

NHTSA maintains its long-standing position that the seller is the person in the chain of distribution most likely to know of a vehicle's intended use, and remains accountable for selling a vehicle as a school bus if the seller has reason to know whether the buyer intends such use. 40 FR 60033, December 31, 1975.

Your second question involves the term "schoolbus" as it is defined in the Vehicle Safety Act, @ 102(14) [15 U.S.C. @ 1391(14)]. That provision reads:

"'Schoolbus' means a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or se condary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools." (Emphasis supplied.)

You ask whether the Secretary has adopted a regulation that defines the term "significantly" as it is used in this statutory provision. The answer is no. The question of whether a motor vehicle is "likely to be significantly used" for transporting stude nts is one that the agency finds appropriate to resolve case-by-case, focusing upon the intended use of the vehicle. However, in the final rule amending the definition of "school bus," the agency stated its view that "the Congressional emphasis on 'sign ificant use' of a vehicle (is) a direction to extend the school bus standards to all buses that transport students, whether or not it is their primary purpose." 40 FR 60033, 60034. Emphasis supplied. In expressing this view, NHTSA specifically rejected a Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission (VESC) suggestion that the agency find "significant use" only where a bus was to be used "primarily" for transporting students. Id. Emphasis supplied. Therefore, when the agency considers "significant use," the ques tion of whether a vehicle primarily transports school staff is not determinative.

I hope you find this information helpful.

ID: 2659o

Edwin Speas, Jr., Esq.
Special Deputy Attorney General
State of North Carolina
Department of Justice
P.O. Box 629
Raleigh, N.C. 27602-0629

Dear Mr. Speas:

I am responding to your letter of July 7, 1987, where you ask for some assistance with an issue facing your State's public school systems. You stated that some school systems have purchased vans that do not meet Federal school bus specifications. The school systems use these noncomplying vans primarily to transport school teachers and administrators, but the vans sometimes are used to transport students to extracurricular activities.

You ask two questions. The first question is whether Federal law prohibits a school system from using a van to transport students to extracurricular activities if the van does not meet Federal school bus standards. The second question is whether the Secretary of Transportation has adopted a regulation defining the term "significantly" as that term appears in 15 U.S.C. /1391(14).

The 1974 amendments to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act or VSA) apply to any person manufacturing or selling a new "school bus." NHTSA defines "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold or introduced into interstate commerce for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. The VSA does not regulate the manner in which a person, including a school district, uses a vehicle it purchases. Therefore, the answer to your first question is that Federal law does not prohibit a school district from transporting students in a noncomplying vehicle.

On the other hand, the seller of these vans may have sold them in violation of Federal law if the seller had reason to know from factors such as the identity or activities of the purchaser that the purchaser intended to use or convert the vans to school buses. When NHTSA proposed to amend the definition of "school bus" in consequence of the 1974 VSA amendments, we anticipated that there may be circumstances in which a manufacturer has no reason to know that one of its dealers has sold one of its vehicles as a school bus. The agency expressly stated in the preamble to the proposal that if a dealer knowingly sold any multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) or bus capable of being converted and used as a school bus to a school or a school bus contract operator, then the dealer would be responsible for certifying the vehicle's compliance with school bus standards. 40 FR 40854, September 4, 1975.

NHTSA maintains its long-standing position that the seller is the person in the chain of distribution most likely to know of a vehicle's intended use, and remains accountable for selling a vehicle as a school bus if the seller has reason to know whether the buyer intends such use. 40 FR 60033, December 31, 1975.

Your second question involves the term "schoolbus" as it is defined in the Vehicle Safety Act, /102(14) [15 U.S.C. /1391(14)]. That provision reads:

"'Schoolbus' means a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools." (Emphasis supplied.)

You ask whether the Secretary has adopted a regulation that defines the term "significantly" as it is used in this statutory provision. The answer is no. The question of whether a motor vehicle is "likely to be significantly used" for transporting students is one that the agency finds appropriate to resolve case-by-case, focusing upon the intended use of the vehicle. However, in the final rule amending the definition of "school bus," the agency stated its view that "the Congressional emphasis on 'significant use' of a vehicle (is) a direction to extend the school bus standards to all buses that transport students, whether or not it is their primary purpose." 40 FR 60033, 60034. Emphasis supplied. In expressing this view, NHTSA specifically rejected a Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission (VESC) suggestion that the agency find "significant use" only where a bus was to be used "primarily" for transporting students. Id. Emphasis supplied. Therefore, when the agency considers "significant use," the question of whether a vehicle primarily transports school staff is not determinative.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:VSA#57l d:2/19/88

ID: nht91-5.51

DATE: September 17, 1991

FROM: Jeffrey P. Shimp -- Engineer, Fleet Engineering & Q.A., Transportation Department, Baltimore Gas and Electric

TO: Mary Versailles -- NHTSA, Office of Chief Counsel

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-9-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Jeffrey P. Shimp (A38; VSA S108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

In order to better serve our customers, we have found it necessary to increase the size of our work crews from two men to three men in one of our departments. Due to the amount of material required for these crews, we have typically utilized (two passenger) cargo vans for this operation. In view of the above, we would like to install a third seat in our cargo vans (mini and/or short wheel base), which are delivered by the manufacturers as a certified completed vehicle.

We would greatly appreciate it if you could provide a written response advising us on this issue so that we can be in compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and any other governing regulations.

If I can be of any assistance to you, please feel free to contact me (301/281-3630).

ID: 21941.ztv

Mr. Ryan Hoffman
Hoffman Group, Inc.
2863 Mandela Parkway, 2d floor
Oakland, CA 94608





Dear Mr. Hoffman:





This is in reply to your fax of July 25, 2000, with respect to the Funtech 50. You describe the vehicle as a "three-wheel motorcycle with two outrigger wheels (stabilizer wheels)."

You write that "the stabilizer wheels are not in contact with the ground under normal driving conditions" although a wheel can momentarily touch the ground during a turn. You have asked for an interpretation that the Funtech 50 with its outrigger wheels is a "motor-driven cycle" as we define it.

For purposes of our jurisdiction, as defined in 49 CFR 571.3(b), a "motorcycle" is "a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground." I enclose copies of letters of January 3, 1995, to James D. Murphy, Jr., and June 11, 1986, to Terry W. Wagar providing interpretations that two-wheeled vehicles with outrigger wheels used to provide stability in turns are considered to be "motorcycles." When outrigger wheels serve the same stabilizing purpose on a three-wheeled vehicle such as the Funtech 50, we also consider such a vehicle to be a "motorcycle."

A "motor-driven cycle" is defined as "a motorcycle with a motor that produces 5-brake horsepower or less." Your letter does not identify the Funtech 50's engine. If it produces 5-brake horsepower or less, the vehicle would be a "motor driven cycle; otherwise," the Funtech 50 is a "motorcycle."

You also asked for clarification that a three-wheeled motorcycle "can have either two wheels at the front and one wheel at the rear, or, one wheel at the front and two wheels at the rear." We

confirm your understanding that both configurations are acceptable; the regulatory definition of motorcycle does not specify how three wheels must be arranged.

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





Sincerely,





Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel





Enclosures
ref:571
d.7/31/00

ID: 17696.drn

Gary Miller, Vice President
Chillicothe Ford Lincoln Mercury
521 South Washington
Chillicothe, MO 64601

Dear Mr. Miller:

This responds to your request for an interpretation regarding the removal of seats from a new 15-passenger Ford E350 Club Wagon, for possible sale to a school. You ask whether the van must meet Federal school bus standards if seats are removed, reducing seating positions to fewer than 10. Our answer is that if the seats were permanently removed prior to the vehicle's sale, the van would not be a "school bus" subject to our school bus standards. However, the vehicle would be considered to be a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) and subject to standards for MPVs.

Your letter states that a "School of Vocational Education" in your area would like the Club Wagon. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that high school aged students attend the School of Vocational Education ("the School"), and get credit towards high school diplomas for attending the School.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1974, Congress enacted legislation directing NHTSA to issue safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety.

Our statute at 49 U.S.C.30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Under our regulations, a "bus" is any vehicle, including a van that has a seating capacity of 11 persons or more. Our statute defines a "school bus" as any bus which is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. Therefore, a 15-passenger van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus."

Because the School of Vocational Education instructs high school students, NHTSA considers it a "school." If a new 15-passenger Club Wagon is sold or leased to transport students of the School (e.g., leased on a regular or long term basis), the vehicle must meet NHTSA's school bus standards. Conventional 15-passenger vans do not have the safety features necessary for them to be certified as school buses. Therefore, a conventional Club Wagon thus cannot be sold or leased, as a new vehicle, to the School for pupil transportation.

As for removing seats from the van, in an interpretation letter of April 2, 1996 to the Michigan State Police (copy enclosed), NHTSA addressed the issue of dealers reducing seating capacity on a bus to fewer than 11 positions. NHTSA stated the following (see page 3):

If a dealer permanently reduces the seating capacity of a bus to less than 11, the modified vehicle is no longer a "bus." Because the dealer would not be selling a bus, the requirement to sell a school bus does not apply. However, a dealer modifying a new vehicle in this manner would have other responsibilities as a vehicle "alterer" under our regulations (49 CFR 567.7). The dealer would be changing the vehicle's classification to that of a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), and would have to certify that the vehicle complies to the MPV standards.

The letter also addresses several hypothetical situations where dealers lease or sell passenger vans with 5, 8 or 12 seating positions to schools.

You also wish to know whether the van has to meet school bus standards if seating capacity were reduced to 10 or fewer and you obtained a letter from the School stating that it will never transport more than 10 people. As explained above, with seating capacity reduced to less than 11 persons, the vehicle would be subject to the MPV standards. In any event, you appear to be asking whether a school's assurances that it will not carry more than 10 persons in a vehicle enables you to sell non-school buses to the school. The answer is no. A vehicle is a bus depending on whether it is designed for carrying more than 10 persons. The number of persons actually carried in the vehicle has no effect on its classification. Thus, a letter from the school will have no effect on your responsibilities, described in the April 1996 letter, to sell complying vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:VSA#571.3"school bus only"
d.7/28/98

ID: 1983-1.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JANUARY 31, 1983

FROM: BINICHI DOI -- NSK

TO: ROBERT NELSON -- NHTSA

TITLE: SAFETY BELT RETRACTORS

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 7-7-83 TO BINICHI DOI FROM FRANK BERNDT, REDBOOK A24, NOA-30

TEXT: On January 12th, I asked you this question and was told to submit the question in writing.

This question is from NSK-Warner K.K. of Japan which is one of the safety belt manufacturers of Japan and for which I work as its representative in North America.

Attached sketches are: 1. One type of adjust tongue installed in Japanese automobiles; 2. Another type of same; 3. GM's tongue called "One way friction D ring". The second sheet shows the general arrangement of our seat belt system.

Our question is as follows:

Is it required by regulation(s) that a safety belt system with tension reliever (such as GM's window shade type) should have adjust tongue of Type 3 of attached sketches (one way locking)?

Your kind attention to this inquiry will be appreciated by us.

Attachments

ID: 1984-2.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/07/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dr. Eugenio Alzati -- General Director, Ferrari S.p.A.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dr. Eng. Eugenic Alzati General Director Ferrari S.p.A. 41100 Moodena Viale Trento Triesta, 31 ITALY

This responds to your letter to Mr. Steed, the Administrator of this agency, asking that Ferrari be allowed to petition for a low volume exemption from the generally applicable passenger automobile fuel economy standards. Ferrari had filed a petition asking such a request for its 1978 model year vehicles, but was ruled ineligible for a low volume exemption because Ferrari was controlled by Fiat, S.p.A. Now that Fiat has stopped importing vehicles into the US, you stated your belief that Ferrari is in the same position as Naserati, which has been ruled eligible to apply for low volume exemption. I need some further information to determine if Ferrari should be considered eligible to film a petition for a low volume exemption.

By way of background, section 502(c) of the Motor Vehicle information and Cost Savings Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. (2002)(c) provides:

On application of a manufacturer who manufactured (whether or not in the US) fewer than 10,000 passenger automobiles in the second model year proceding the model year for which the application is made, the Secretary may, by rule exempt such manufacturer from (the generally applicable fuel economy standards).

To determine whether Ferrari manufactures fewer that 10,000 passenger automobiles, it is necessary to interpret and apply sections 501(9) and 503(c) of the Act. Section 501(9) specifies: the term "manufacturer" (sic) (except for purposes of section 502(c)) means to produce or assemble in the customs territory of the US, or to import." Section 503(c) reads as follows:

(c) Any reference in this part to automobiles manufactured by a manufacturer shall be deemed-- (1) to include all automobiles manufactured by persons who control, are controlled by, or are under common control with, such manufacturer; and (2) to exclude all automobiles manufactured (within the meaning of paragraph (1) during a model year by such manufacturer which are exported prior to the expiration of 30 days following the end of such school year.

As you noted in your letter, this agency has determined that Naserati is eligible to file a petition for a low volume exemption under section 502(c) of the Act, even though that company is under common control with Nuova Innocenti, S.p.A., which manufactures more than 10,000 passenger automobiles annually. This petition was allowed because NHTSA believes that the term "manufacture" in section 503(c) means to produce or assemble in the US, or to import into the US. Since none of the Nuova Innocenti automobiles are imported into the US, NHTSA concluded that only Naserati's worldwide production should be counted to determine whether that company was eligible for a low volume exemption.

Your situation is potentially similar to the Maserati situation, if the current importers of what formerly were the Fiat X1/9 and Spider 2000 were not found to be under the control of Fiat S.p.A. To make this determination, I will need answers to the following questions:

1. State whether Fiat S.p.A. owns any stock in either industrie Pininfarina S.p.A. or Carrozeria Bertone. If so, please state the extent of such holdings (both in number of shares and the percentage of total shares outstanding).

2. State whether the models which are sold in the US by Pininfarina and Bartone are sold in any other countries. If so, please state whether those models are marketed as Fiats, or whether they are marketed as Pininfarinas and Bartones.

3. State whether the components used by Pininfarina and Bartone when assembling these automobiles are manufactured by those companies or by another company. If any of the components are manufactured by Fiat S.p.A. or any of its subsidiaries, please identify and list each of these components.

4. Your letter had a Feb. 14 l983 letter from Fiat of North America to the Environmental Protection Agency attached thereto. On page 2 of that letter, the following sentence appears: "We would also like to advise you that we will officially be helping Industrie Pininfarine S.p.A. and Carrozeria Bertone in dealing with certification matters in accordance with instructions received from them and Fiat Auto S.p.A." Please detail any and all assistance Fiat of North America currently provides to Pininfarine and Bertone, what assistance was formerly provided, and when the official assistance was ended, if it has been ended.

5. Indicate whether Fiat currently provides any engineering, design, or servicing advice or assistance to Pininfarine and Bertone in connection with the 21/9 or Spider 2000 models. If so, indicate the motors and frequency of such assistance.

The agency will make a prompt determination of Ferrari's eligibility to file for an exemption under section 502(c) of the Act when we receive your answers to these questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 86-6.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Melvin Krewall -- Administrator, Transportation Section, Finance Division, Oklahoma State Dept. of Education

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Melvin Krewall, Administrator Transportation Section, Finance Division Oklahoma State Department of Education 2500 North Lincoln Boulevard Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4599

This responds to your August 22, 1986, letter to former Chief Counsel Jeffrey Miller concerning our regulations for school bus manufacturing. You asked whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has certified and approved the "Asia Smith Chassis" for school buses. You stated that you need a copy of the certification because Oklahoma requires chassis to be approved by the state Board of Education before they can be sold in Oklahoma.

I would like to begin by clarifying that NHTSA does not certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. This agency regulates motor vehicle safety under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to exercise due care in selecting and conducting the mathematical calculations, computers simulations or testing that form the basis for that certification. Manufacturers certify their school buses by attaching a label to their vehicles in accordance with our certification procedures. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with applicable safety standards.

A school bus manufacturer who installs a school bus body on a new chassis (such as an Asia Smith chassis) is required by our certification regulations (49 CFR 567 and 568) to certify the completed vehicle to Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. Those regulations require the chassis manufacturer to furnish information which assists the vehicle manufacturer in making that certification. When certifying its school buses, the manufacturer affirms that the vehicle, including the chassis, conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including school bus safety standards.

You indicated that Oklahoma requires school bus chassis to be approved by the state before their sale. I am concerned with this requirement because its imposition could be preempted by operation of the Vehicle Safety Act. The first sentence of section 103(d) of the Safety Act states: Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item or motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a Federal Register notice issued by the agency concerning the issue of preemption and pre-sale state enforcement of safety standards (47 Fed. Reg. 884; January 7, 1982). The notice discusses NHTSA's position that Federal law preempts state requirements which prescribe the sale of equipment certified to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard unless the equipment is also approved by the State. We believe that Oklahoma's requirement for approval of school bus chassis is analogous.

As I understand Oklahoma's requirement, it imposes requirements which have the effect of proscribing the sale of certified school buses unless their chassis are also approved by the State. Apparently, school buses manufactured with chassis lacking state approval may not be sold in Oklahoma. Even though the vehicle has been certified as meeting all preempted because it imposes burdens differing in a significant respect from the Federal regulatory scheme.

I hope this information is helpful. If you wish to further discuss the preemption issue or have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

AUGUST 22, 1986

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

The August/September 1986 issue of School Bus Fleet magazine has an article about Asia Smith Chassis for school buses. They are marketed by Asia Smith Motor Inc. of Plaistow, New Hampshire.

My question to you is, has this chassis been certified and approved for sale in the United States? If it has been certified, where can I receive a copy of the certification showing that it meets all the federal minimum standards. It is imperative that this information be disseminated to us as our State Board of Education must approve all chassis manufacturers after they receive federal approval.

Thank you in advance for this vital information.

Sincerely,

Melvin Krewall Administrator Transportation Section Finance Division MK:bam