ID: 22539.ztv

Mr. Tomas P. Quintanilla
Fines, Fees & Forfeiture Section
Guam Customs & Quarantine Agency
Logistics & Support Division
1503 Central Ave. Tiyan
Barrigada, Guam 96913

FAX (671) 475-6219





Dear Mr. Quintanilla:

This is in reply to your fax of December 18, 2000, to this agency's "Compliance Branch" re the possible forfeiture of a vehicle that does not comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS).

The vehicle in question is a 1998 Volkswagen Golf from Japan whose "front windshield and light assembly did not have the required 'DOT' markings, and therefore not enterable into Guam according to U.S.D.O.T." The owner has not brought the vehicle into compliance and is willing to forfeit the vehicle rather than pay the storage fees that have accumulated in the interim. You have asked two questions with respect to this situation:

"1. Can this vehicle be forfeited to a Government of Guam Agency and relinquished to another government agency for government use?"

First of all, we want to call to your attention that the attempted importation of this vehicle was contrary to statute. Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a), before a nonconforming vehicle can be admitted for purposes of conformance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration must have determined that the vehicle is capable of conversion to meet the FMVSS (See list at Appendix A, 49 CFR Part 593). We have made no such determination with respect to the 1998 Volkswagen Golf.

Further, under 49 U.S.C. 30141(d)(1), an importer of a nonconforming vehicle is required to provide a bond to ensure that the vehicle will be brought into conformance. If the vehicle covered by the bond is not brought into compliance, the bond requires the vehicle "to be exported (at no cost to the United States Government) by the Secretary of the Treasury or abandoned to the Government." We interpret this as authorizing forfeiture only to the Federal Government. If the Volkswagen in question is covered by a conformance bond, the terms of the bond require the vehicle to be exported by the Guam Customs & Quarantine Agency, or that it be abandoned to an agency of the United States Government. We prefer that the vehicle be exported to ensure that it will never be sold at auction or otherwise to a private individual for use on the public roads.

If the Volkswagen is not covered by a conformance bond, the only proper disposition of it under the laws that we administer is that it be exported to a jurisdiction outside the United States (see 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(10)).

"2. What authority can I cite, if any, which states that a non-conforming vehicle can be utilized as long as it is not driven on public roadways?"

There is no authority that you can cite for your proposition. The 1998 Volkswagen Golf is a passenger car manufactured for use on the public roads. The vehicle in question does not comply with applicable FMVSS and cannot be imported for use on or off the public roads.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

John Womack,
Acting Chief Counsel,
ref:591,
d.3/8/01

ID: 2253y

Ms. Linda B. Kent
Senior Account Executive
Market Development
Fasson Specialty Division
250 Chester Street
Painesville, OH 44077

Dear Ms. Kent:

Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of whether the use of a product on motor vehicles would violate Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR /571.205). This product, called "Contra Vision," is designed to display messages or advertising materials on windows and other clear surfaces, so that viewers on one side of the clear surface will see the message displayed, while viewers on the other side of the surface will see an essentially transparent surface without any message visible. According to your letter, this product "will be used for promotional signage in store windows, but also has application in rear taxicab windows, as well as rear and side windows of city buses." You asked for our opinion of whether this product complies with Standard No. 205.

Some background on how Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulation affect this product may be helpful. Our agency is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or processes. Instead, the Safety Act specifies that each manufacturer itself must certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety and alleged violations of other statutory provisions.

Your letter indicates that you are already aware that NHTSA has issued a safety standard that applies to the windows installed in motor vehicles. Specifically, Standard No. 205 requires that all new vehicles and all new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles must comply with certain performance requirements. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance. A minimum of 70 percent light transmittance is required in glazing areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars. In trucks and buses, the windshield and windows to the immediate right and left of the driver and the rearmost window, if the latter is used for driving visibility, are considered to be requisite for driving visibility, and therefore subject to the 70 percent minimum light transmittance requirement.

Your letter did not provide any information on the light transmittance that would be measured through glazing with Contra Vision installed on it. The combination of the glazing material and the Contra Vision must allow at least 70 percent light transmittance to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install Contra Vision on the glazing materials on new vehicles, unless the manufacturer or dealer certifies that the vehicle continues to comply with the 70 percent minimum light transmittance and other requirements of Standard No. 205.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to the vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. This provision of the law means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install Contra Vision if the addition of Contra Vision to the glazing would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent, or otherwise cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the applicable requirements of Standard 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $1000 for each noncomplying installation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act does not affect vehicle owners. Hence, vehicle owners themselves may install Contra Vision or any other product on the glazing of their vehicle, regardless of whether the installation causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 205. Individual States have the authority to regulate the operational use of vehicles by their owners, and, therefore, have the authority to regulate or preclude individual owner modifications to the glazing of their vehicles.

I have enclosed an information sheet that summarizes the relationship between Federal auto safety laws and motor vehicle window tinting. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:205#VSA d:l/9/90

ID: 2254y

Mr. Howard Kossover
CMI Trailer Division
P.O. Box 1985
Oklahoma City, Ok 73107

Dear Mr. Kossover:

This is in reply to your letter of December 8, l989, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have enclosed photographs of a semi-trailer that you are constructing, and wish to know whether the location of the rear turn signal, stop, and taillamps comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Table II of Standard No. l08 requires each of these lamps to be "on the rear". In addition, the SAE requirements for each of these lamps that are incorporated by reference into Standard No. l08 require that visibility of each lamp shall not be obstructed by any part of the vehicle throughout the photometric test angles for the lamp, unless the lamp is designed to comply with all photometric and visibility requirements with these obstructions considered. In addition, signals from lamps on both sides of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right. To be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed projected illuminated area of the outer lens surface, excluding reflex, at least 2 square inches in extent, measured at 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.

The lamps on your semi-trailer are mounted 27 inches from the rear edge of the vehicle. In that position the lamps are not mounted "on the rear". Further, we question whether the 45 degree visibility requirements would be met, especially for the inboard lamps. We do not know whether the extended portion of the vehicle between the lamps is a sufficient obstruction to affect compliance with the photometric requirements. Overall, it does not appear that this design complies with Standard No. l08.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel / ref:l08 d:l/9/90

ID: 22556.ztv

Mr. Gary L. Johnson, Sr.
Trintex Corporation
P.O. Box 309
Bowdon, GA 30108-0309





Dear Mr. Johnson:

This is in reply to your letter of October 24, 2000, (apparently mailed later, as we did not receive it until January 8, 2001). You ask for a legal interpretation regarding your "Safety Light Cord," an example of which arrived shortly after your letter.

As you describe it, "the light cord attached to a battery activates four-way flashers" on trailers. When installed, "the cord will allow the emergency four-way flashers to blink to improve the visibility of disabled trailers." The cord apparently also can be used to provide power to trailer lighting systems in the event there is a disruption in the electrical connection between tractors and trailers.

Under our regulations, the Safety Light Cord is an item of "motor vehicle equipment," but there are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to it. This means that its manufacture and use are subject to any standards that may apply to it in any state in which it is sold or used, rather than it being subject to any Federal standards.

We are puzzled by your remark that the Cord activates "the emergency four-way flashers." On motor vehicles other than trailers and motorcycles, the front and rear turn signal lamps activated simultaneously by a vehicular hazard warning system operating unit comprise the hazard warning system required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, "Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment." However, Standard No. 108 does not require trailers to have either front turn signal lamps or a hazard warning system operating unit. We believe you mean to tell us that the Cord activates both rear turn signal lamps simultaneously in a flashing mode.

You also mentioned that "all the assembly parts . . . are already D.O.T. approved parts." We do not know what you mean by this statement. The Department of Transportation neither approves nor disapproves parts. Please understand that, even though we have informed you that none of our standards apply to the Safety Light Cord, Trintex may not represent that the Cord is "D.O.T. approved;" you must not use this expression in any manner in connection with this product.

If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson with whom you have talked previously (202-366-5263). We are returning the sample Cord under separate cover.

We appreciate your efforts to enhance the conspicuity of disabled trailers.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.3/21/01

ID: 22559.drn

William Kurtz, Department Manager
Environmental & Safety Engineering
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
One Mercedes Drive, P.O. Box 350
Montvale, NJ 07645-0350





Dear Mr. Kurtz:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect. You wish to know whether your proposed vehicle design, in which the park position control is not included in the shift lever sequence, but is activated by a separate push-button control mounted on the end of the transmission shift lever, must meet the park position requirement in S3.1.1 of Standard No.102. As explained below, the answer is no.

Before addressing the substantive question that you raised, I note that you have asked for confidential treatment of certain bracketed information in your request for an interpretation, and have provided copies of the letter with the confidential information redacted. In order to save time, I agree to keep confidential the bracketed information, with the exception of a quotation from a letter of September 25, 1998, from Frank Seales, Jr., the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Chief Counsel, to BMW of North America, Inc., which is a publicly available letter.

Paragraph S3.1.1 of Standard No 102, Location of transmission shift lever positions on passenger cars, states, in part, " . . . If the transmission shift lever sequence includes a park position, it shall be located at the end, adjacent to the reverse drive position." [emphasis added.]

This provision was interpreted by this office in a letter of September 25, 1998, to BMW of North America, Inc., (BMW). In that letter, we stated in part:

Paragraph S3.1.1 explicitly limits the requirement to those park positions included within the "shift lever sequence." It is our interpretation that if park is not selected by the movement of the shift lever, then the park control is not part of the shift lever sequence. In this case, the sentence quoted above does not apply, and the park control does not have to be located at the end, adjacent to reverse.

The park position described in your letter is not included in the shift lever sequence. It is selected not by the movement of the shift, lever but by pushing on a push-button control mounted on the end of the transmission shift lever. Therefore, as was the case for the vehicle with the park position control described in our September 25, 1998, letter to BMW, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC's vehicle with the park position control described in your letter need not meet the park position requirement in S3.1.1 of Standard No. 102.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:102
d.2/2/01

ID: 2255y

Mr. Scott K. Hiler
Manager, R & D Lab
The C.E. White Co.
417 N. Kibler Street
New Washington, OH 44854

Dear Mr. Hiler:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR /571.210). Specifically, you asked if the strength test set forth in that standard requires simultaneous testing of all the safety belt anchorages for a passenger seat in school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, when those anchorages are installed on the seat frame, or whether those anchorages can be tested individually. The answer is that such anchorages are tested individually under the current provisions of the strength test in Standard No. 210.

Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.222) establishes the occupant protection requirements for passenger seating positions in school buses. Section S5(b) of Standard No. 222 provides that school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall meet the requirements of Standard No. 210, among other standards. Section S4.2 of Standard No. 210 sets forth the strength test for anchorages. Section S4.2.4 reads as follows: "Except for common seat belt anchorages for forward-facing and rearward-facing seats, floor-mounted seat belt anchorages for adjacent designated seating positions shall be tested by simultaneously loading the seat belt assemblies attached to those anchorages."

Note that the only anchorages subject to a simultaneous testing requirement are floor-mounted anchorages. The anchorages described in your letter and shown in the photographs enclosed with that letter are mounted on the seat frame. Therefore, those anchorages would not be tested simultaneously to determine compliance with Standard No. 210.

I should also point out that NHTSA has proposed to amend section S4.2.4 of Standard No. 210 so that all seat and floor-mounted anchorages common to one seat would be tested simultaneously during the strength test. I have enclosed a copy of that proposal for your information. The interpretation in this letter may no longer be correct after the effective date of any final rule adopting that proposal.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref:210 d:l/l2/90

ID: 2256y

Ms. Linda L. Conrad
Nives Ford, Inc.
15690 South Harlem Avenue
Orland Park, IL 60462

Dear Ms. Conrad:

This responds to your letter asking what legal obligations are imposed on car dealers to replace air bags on used vehicles accepted as trade-ins. Your letter explained that your dealership has received, as a trade-in, a 1989 car that had a driver-side air bag as original equipment. According to your letter, the car had been in a crash and the air bag was deployed. Hence, when this car was taken in trade by your dealership, its air bag was not functional. You asked whether any law requires you to replace the deployed air bag with a new air bag before selling the car.

In response to your question, we can advise you as follows: (1) Federal law does not require a car dealer to replace a deployed air bag in a used vehicle; (2) a dealer may be required by State law to replace that equipment, or be liable for failure to do so; and (3) our agency strongly encourages dealers to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants.

We will first address the Federal legal issues, since our agency administers the Federal vehicle safety law. 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 issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208). Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. "Automatic crash protection" means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. The performance of automatic crash protection is dynamically tested, that is, the automatic systems are required to comply with certain injury reduction criteria as measured by test dummies in a barrier crash test at speeds up to 30 mph. The requirement for automatic crash protection was phased-in for passenger cars, beginning with 1987 model year new cars. That phase-in is now completed, and all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 are required to be equipped with automatic crash protection.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that, "No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard ..." (Emphasis added) Because of this statutory requirement, your dealership cannot legally sell or offer for sale a new car equipped with an air bag if you know that the air bag has been deployed.

However, section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)) provides that the prohibitions in section 108(a)(1)(A) "shall not apply to the sale, offer for sale, or the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any motor vehicle after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale." In other words, once the 1989 Chrysler LeBaron described in your letter was sold and delivered to its first retail purchaser, the vehicle was no longer required by Federal law to comply with Standard No. 208.

After the first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth 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, unless such manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes that such vehicle ... will not be used (other than for testing or similar purposes in the course of maintenance or repair) during the time such device or element of design is rendered inoperative.

In the case of passenger cars equipped with air bags pursuant to Standard No. 208, this section would prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing, disabling, or otherwise "rendering inoperative" the air bags, except as needed to make repairs to the car. When any such repairs are completed, the car must be returned to the customer with the air bag capable of functioning at least as well as it was able to do when the car was received by the manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business. Any violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition in the Safety Act would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Please note that the "render inoperative" provision does not impose an affirmative duty on dealers to replace equipment that was previously removed by someone else, or to repair equipment that was damaged in a crash. Thus, if your dealership purchases a used car that was originally equipped with an air bag pursuant to Standard No. 208, and the air bag was deployed before your dealership took possession of the car, Federal law does not require your dealership to replace the deployed air bag with a functioning air bag before you resell the car.

Despite the absence of any requirement in Federal law, dealers may still be required by State law to replace deployed air bags, or they may be liable for failing to do so. You should be aware that the individual States have authority to require that used vehicles have certain equipment installed and functioning when the used vehicles are sold. You may wish to contact the State of Illinois to learn if there are any applicable laws or regulations that would apply in these circumstances. Additionally, you may wish to consult a private attorney familiar with the law in the State of Illinois regarding potential liability in tort for your dealership in these circumstances. While such issues are beyond this agency's area of legal expertise, we do note that every State provides for some degree of civil liability for consumer products and repair work. The potential for finding a car dealer liable may be greater when that dealer sells a used vehicle without one of the originally-installed safety systems intact and functional.

As a final note, and in addition to the legal considerations, it is NHTSA's strong policy recommendation that dealers always replace air bags following deployment, unless the vehicle is to be junked. Indeed, we have long recommended the repair, restoration, or replacement of all safety systems that may have been damaged in a crash, including the safety belts and brakes, as well as the air bag systems now being installed in passenger cars.

While air bags are in some respects "supplemental" to safety belts, in that the air bags provide additional protection, the air bags are nevertheless vitally important to the vehicle's overall capability to protect occupants in a crash. Those vehicles are designed so that the air bag will always work, even if the safety belt is not worn; and the safety belt system is designed to work in conjunction with the air bag in serious frontal crashes. Additionally, the consumer information available to the purchaser of the used car described in your letter -- in the vehicle owner's manual, from the carmaker and insurance companies, and from NHTSA and other safety groups -- would identify the car as one equipped with a driver-side air bag. The purchaser may well expect a used car to provide the safety equipment that was provided by the original manufacturer.

In short, from the standpoints of auto safety, dealer risk management, consumer protection, customer relations, and good business practices, NHTSA strongly advocates the replacment of deployed air bags.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#208 d:l/l9/90

ID: 22584.ztv

Mr. Neil Mardell
Manager Product Development
Dynasty Motorcar Corporation
800 McCurdy Road
Kelowna, BC
Canada V1X 2P7





Dear Mr. Mardell:

This is in reply to your letter of January 9, 2001, enclosing documents in support of your request to import and sell your IT (Neighborhood Electric Vehicle) in the United States.

We understand that you have filed a Designation of Agent with this Office's General Law Division, and we have delivered the Acceptance of Appointment you enclosed to the appropriate attorney in the Division. Similarly, we have taken your Manufacturer Identification statement and sample compliance label to the appropriate Office in this agency.

There was no legal need for you to file the "proof of compliance with the requirements of FMVSS 500" because no approval is needed under the laws of the United States for you to export the vehicle to the United States from Canada.

The maximum speed test of the prototype IT resulted in a value of 39.998 km/h, barely beneath the definitional ceiling of 40 km/h for low-speed vehicles. Please note that each production IT must not exceed the definitional ceiling, not just the single prototype vehicle tested. The narrow margin of 0.002 km/h in the test of the prototype IT may not be sufficient to ensure that the maximum speed of production vehicles does not exceed 40 km/h. This is especially critical when the maximum speed of the IT is artificially limited by a programmable motor controller. Component tolerances, adjustments, environments, and manufacturing variables can result in different test results. If you have technical questions about Standard No. 500's test procedure, you may contact John Finneran of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (202-366-0645).

Your product literature notes the availability in late 2001 of two light utility versions of the IT. Under 49 CFR 571.3(b), a "low-speed vehicle" is defined in part as a vehicle "other than a truck." A "truck" is, among other things, "a vehicle designed primarily for the transportation of

property." The two light utility ITs are designed primarily to carry property and would be trucks. Trucks are not eligible for certification under Standard No. 500 even if their maximum speed does not exceed 40 km/h.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:500


d.3/8/01

ID: 22592.ztv

Mr. Art Tan
President
CNA Industries, Inc.
985 Los Lagos
Pomona, CA 91766





Dear Mr. Tan:

This is in reply to your undated letter which we received on January 8, 2001. You have informed us that you are making "small off-road utility vehicles mainly for golf courses." You have asked us to advise you "what category our vehicles fall in according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's regulations."

The information you have submitted demonstrates your familiarity with the five factors that we use in our interpretations on whether certain vehicles are motor vehicles. You have addressed each of these factors in a manner to support a determination that the vehicles in question are not motor vehicles subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Specifically, according to your letter, the vehicles "are for ground maintenance work on golf courses," which is to say, their intended use is in an off-road application. The vehicles "will be distributed through "our turf & tractor dealers only." That is to say, they will not be sold by dealers in motor vehicles. Each owner will be provided a certificate advising that the vehicle has been manufactured for off-road applications only, and you will not provide any manufacturer's document that may help the owner register the vehicle for on-road use. That is consistent with a conclusion that the vehicles in question are not manufactured for on-road use. You will advertise only in publications for turf and ground maintenance. That is consistent with the purpose for which the vehicles have been manufactured. Finally, you will affix four labels to the vehicle advising that it is an "off road" vehicle and must not be used on the public roads. Whether a vehicle will bear warning labels is the fifth factor we examine, and you have answered this, too, in a manner that permits us to conclude that your vehicles are not motor vehicles.

Therefore, based on the representations in your letter and considering all the five factors discussed above, on balance, we believe that your vehicles are not "motor vehicles." However, we will reexamine this conclusion if we learn, for example, the vehicles are in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:571

d.3/27/01

ID: 22594

Mr. Henry E. Seiff, P.E.
Director of Technology
The Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition
1100 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 850
Arlington, VA 22209





Dear Mr. Seiff:

This is in response to your letter of January 3, 2001, in which you request an interpretation of the bonfire test procedures of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 304, "Compressed Natural Gas Fuel Container Integrity." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently amended these procedures, and you ask whether the new procedures specify both a horizontal and vertical test for compressed natural gas (CNG) fuel containers less than 1.65 meters in length, or only a horizontal test. The answer is the new procedures specify only a horizontal test for such containers.

In the past, Standard No. 304 did specify that CNG fuel containers less than 1.65 meters in length were tested in both the horizontal and vertical positions. However, on October 30, 2000, NHTSA amended the standard's bonfire test procedures. (65 FR 64624).

Now, under S8.3.2(a) of Standard No. 304, the CNG fuel container is positioned "in accordance with paragraphs (b) and (c) of S8.3.2." Paragraph (b) of S8.3.2 specifies that the CNG fuel container is positioned "so that its longitudinal axis is horizontal and its bottom is 100 mm (4 inches) above the fire source." (Emphasis added). Paragraph (c)(1) of S8.3.2 specifies that a CNG fuel container that is 1.65 meters (65 inches) in length or less is positioned "so that the center of the container is over the center of the fire source." Thus, taken together, paragraphs (b) and (c) of S8.3.2 specify that a CNG fuel container that is 1.65 meters in length or less is positioned so that its longitudinal axis is horizontal, its bottom is 100 mm above the fire source, and its center is over the center of the fire source.

The new bonfire test procedures do not specify that a CNG fuel container that is 1.65 meters in length or less is tested in the vertical position.

I hope you find this information useful. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Dion Casey in the Office of Chief Counsel at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:304
d.2/13/01