ID: nht74-4.27

DATE: 05/14/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: L and R Enterprises

COPYEE: HON. JOHN TOWER; HON. LLOYD BENTSEN

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 15, 1974, letter asking whether your installation of spotlights through the left A-pillar of passenger cars is subject to Standards 201 and 216.

Standard 201 does not apply to the instrument panel area on the driver's side from the left door to a longitudinal plane 3-1/4 inches to the right of the steering wheel. The left A pillar is within this excluded area.

Your drilling operation may affect roof strength and I have enclosed a copy of Standard 216, our standard on roof crush resistance. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, it is the responsibility of the person who manufacturers or alters a vehicle to determine whether his vehicle meets the requirements.

Your business is subject to these requirements, however, only if you qualify as an alterer of motor vehicles under 49 CFR 567.7, which is enclosed. The mounting of a spotlight by drilling the A-pillar is a "non-readily attachable" alteration. Such an alteration would be subject to the @ 567.7 requirement only if you mount it "before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale."

2 ENCLS

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

February 19, 1974

Jim Lang President L and R Enterprises

Since the questions raised in your letter of February 15, 1974, are under the jurisdiction of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, we have taken the liberty of forwarding it to the General Counsel of that agency.

You can expect to hear directly from that office in the near future.

FRED J. EMERY Director of the Federal Register

cc:w/encl Lawrence R. Schneider, Esq.

General Counsel

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

cc: (1) Honorable John Tower

United States Senate

(2) Honorable Lloyd Bentsen

United States Senate

L and R Enterprises

February 15, 1974

Director Office of Federal Registrar National Archives and Records Service General Services Administration

Ref: Code of Federal Regulations

49 transportation

Parts 200 to 999

Revised October 1, 1972

With reference to part 571 of the above publication and entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Standard; sub-part 571.201 and with specific reference to S3.1.1b and c, has been interpreted to indicate that any rigid projection outboard from the padded dash is or will be illegal. Our exact reference here has to do with a "post mounted spot light which has a rigid handle outboard from said dash." Please provide an exact interpretation of the above for us.

Another question arises in sub-part 571.216 with specific reference the strength of the roof of a vehicle. Said testing is completed the factory, but if a 1/2" to 3/4" hole is drilled in the left or right front corner post, the physical structure is altered and weakened. We would appreciate a positive interpretation on this point also.

L and R Enterprises is a manufacturer of 12 volt lighting devices, and we need these two interpretations so as to know how to schedule our production.

Thanks for your assistance in this matter.

Jim Lang President L and R Enterprises

c/c Honorable John tower Senator from Texas

Honorable Lloyd Pentsen

Senator from Texas

ID: 77-1.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/02/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Commercial Plastics

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 7, 1976, regarding the use of plastic glazing materials for side windows of school buses. You asked what materials are permitted by Federal regulations for school bus side windows and whether Federal laws concerning the materials that may be used preempt State laws on the same subject.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et. seq.) provides in part:

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 of 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.

Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205) currently does not permit the use of plastic glazing in bus side windows. Therefore, State laws that permit plastic glazing are in direct conflict with Standard No. 205, and it is the agency's opinion that they would be preempted.

I would point out that the agency recently issued a proposal to amend Standard No. 205 that would permit the use of rigid plastic glazing in bus side windows (41 FR 56837, Dec. 30, 1976). I am enclosing a copy of this proposal for your information. I am also enclosing a copy of Standard No. 205 and the ANS Z26 standard that is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205. From these standards you can determine the various types of glazing materials that are permitted for side windows and the requirements that the glazing must meet.

Regarding your question about replacement glazing, Standard No. 205 is not a vehicle standard and is applicable to all glazing for use in motor vehicles, whether the glazing is to be installed in new vehicles or as replacement in used vehicles. Therefore, glazing manufacturers and fabricators cannot produce glazing to be used in a given location in a vehicle unless the standard permits that type of glazing to be used in that location, regardless of whether it is original or replacement glazing.

SINCERELY,

COMMERCIAL PLASTICS & SUPPLY CORP.

December 7, 1976

Office of Chief Council National Hway Traffic Safety Admin.

Att: Mr. Oates:

We have received many inquiries in recent months regarding the use of plastic glazing materials for the side windows of school buses. Naturally, our primary concern is what material is permitted by the Department of Transportation for this use.

On Thursday, November 18, I was in telephone contact with you regarding this subject of school bus glazing. My question is, does the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation supercede that of the State Agencies concerning material permitted in the buses? If so, then why are there states that presently have their own requirements for these buses, which greatly differ from those of your department.

My second question is, what material is accepted by your department for side window glazing and what are the specifications and requirements this material must meet? If it is possible, please send me a copy of this for examination.

Finally, please explain in detail the Standard 205 with respect to replacement window glazing and new equipment requirements. I feel a full explanation will clear up many of my questions.

Thanking in in advance, I remain

David Munafo Transportation Division

ID: nht68-1.20

DATE: 06/10/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your telegram of May 23, 1968, which sought the views of the Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service, NHSB, on four questions of interpreting Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114. Our response to these questions is as follows:

1. We agree that paragraph S4.1(b) of the standard requires that removal of the key from the locking system must prevent steering or self-mobility of the car only under normal conditions. A steering or mobility lock which can be circumvented abnormally, as by disassembly of the locking mechanism or the application of excessive force, would not thereby violate the standard.

2. Paragraph S4.2, which provides that the "prime means" for deactivating the car's engine shall not activate either the steering or self-mobility lock, permits the use of the key to activate the lock and to deactivate the engine. The quoted words refer to the action necessary to perform either task, not to the mechanism which accomplishes it.

3. We agree that the warning device required by paragraph S4.4 is unnecessary when the locking system is in either the "on" or "start" positions. We are presently preparing an amendment to the standard which will clarify paragraph S4.4 by providing that the warning need not be activated when the key locking system is in either of those positions.

4. Your final question seeks an interpretation of the words "key left in the locking position." Since those words do not appear in paragraph S4.4, or elsewhere in the standard, we see no reason to provide an interpretation of them.

Sincerely,

WESTERN UNION TELEGRAM

MAY 23, 1968

G C NIELD, ACTING DIR MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY PERFORMANCE SERVICE NATIONAL WHY SAFETY BUREAU FEDERAL WHY ADMIN DONOHOE BLDG 400 SIXTH ST SW WASHDC

OUR REVIEW OF STANDARD 114, THEFT PROTECTION, INDICATES THAT CONFIRMATION OF SEVERAL INTERPRETATIONS LISTED BELOW IS NECESSARY TO APPLY THE STANDARD WITH CERTAINTY. I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR CONFIRMATION OF THE FOLLOWING INTERPRETATIONS

1. S4.1(B) CONSISTENT WITH THE ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS AND SECTION

S4.1 (33 F.R. 6472) THAT REMOVAL OF THE KEY IS REQUIRED TO PREVENT ONLY "NORMAL" ACTIVATION OF THE CARE ENGINE, OUR INTERPRETATION OF SECTION S4.1(B) IS THAT A KEY LOCKING SYSTEM WHICH PREVENTS STEERING UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS AND/OR PREVENTS NORMAL FORWARD SELF-MOBILITY WHEN THE KEY IS REMOVED, CONSITUTES CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS.

2. S4.2 WE INTERPRET SECTION S4.2 TO ALLOW USE OF THE KEY TO ACTIVATE THE THEFT DETERRENT DEVICE PROVIDED THERE IS AN INTERMEDIATE POSITION OR MEANS TO DEACTIVATE THE ENGINE WITHOUT ACTIVATING THE DETERRENT,

3. S4.4 SINCE THE RUNNING ENGINE FURNISHES A CONTINUOUS WARNING WE INTERPRET SECTION S4.4 TO MEAN THAT THE WARNING DEVICE NEED NOT BE OPERATBLE WHEN THE DRIVERS DOOR IS OPEN AND THE KEY IS IN THE IGNITION-ON POSITION.

4. S4.4 WE INTERPRET "KEY LEFT IN LOCKING POSITION" TO MEAN THAT THE KEY IS INSERTED FULLY IN THE LOCKING SYSTEM TO THE POSITION PERMITTING OPERATION OF THE LOCKING DEVICE.

R O SORNSON FEDERAL SAFETY COORDINATOR CHRYSLER CORP.

ID: nht80-3.15

DATE: 07/07/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 9, 1980, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to the spacing required between headlamps and turn signal lamps on motorcycles.

You cited Table IV of Standard No. 108 which requires that the "minimum edge to edge separation distance between [turn signal] lamp and [headlamp] is 4 inches." You also cited paragraph 4.2 of the referenced SAE standard on turn signal lamps, J588e, which mandates that "the optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal shall be at least 4 inches from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam." Finally, you have cited an agency interpretation of November 5, 1979, to Bajaj Auto Limited as support that the provisions of 4.2 prevail, and you asked for confirmation of this opinion.

The Bajaj letter does not provide the support you seek. The interpretation it provides is that the separation distance must be not less than the minimum under all motorcycle operating conditions.

We view Table IV as controlling in this instance as it contains a specific locational requirement for motorcycles. Since that specific requirement is lacking in Table IV for other motor vehicle, paragraph 4.2 of J588e would then apply with respect to separation distance for lamps on passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles.

SINCERELY,

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

June 9, 1980

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

RE: Request for Interpretation FMVSS 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment

Dear Sir

We request interpretation of the interlamp spacing requirements specified for motorcycles in Table IV of FMVSS 108.

A four-inch spacing is required between turn signal lamps and the edge of the headlamp in front, and between turn signal lamps in the rear. However, while subject table uses the words, "edge to edge", SAE J588e, referenced in Table III, specifies measuring turn signal distance from the filament center.

Acceptance of the filament center of a turn signal lamp as the measuring point is underscored by your letter of November 5, 1979 to Mr. Keshav of Bajaj Auto Limited.

A closely related question concerns the method of measurement, i.e., whether the required four-inch separation dimension is a physical measurement between lamps or a distance between lamp projections. This is questioned because the measurement method is not specified in Table IV, and because S4.3.1.1 of the standard, and section 4.3 of SAE J588e otherwise require unobstructed photometric compliance.

In view of the above, we interpret the standard to mean that the four-inch dimension is a physical measurement to a turn signal's filament.

We would appreciate receiving your interpretation as soon as convenient.

Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager Safety & Emission Control Engineering

ID: nht88-2.70

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/14/88

FROM: SADATO KADOYA -- MANAGER, SAFETY -- ENGINEERING, MAZDA

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION - FMVSS 108; LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT - AUXILIARY LAMPS

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 11-3-88, TO SADATO KADOYA, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, STD 108; ALSO ATTACHED, MEMO DATED 7-14-88, RE: REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT OF INFORMATION-49 CFR PART 512, CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

TEXT: Mazda is currently developing a lamp mechanism that features movable reflectors which can expand the area of illumination according to the driving steering angle on curved roads. The purpose of such a mechanism, when incorporated into the vehicle forwar d lighting system, is to better illuminate the forward curved path of the driver, and to therefore improve night-driving safety on winding roads.

To insure that such a system will be in compliance with all applicable safety standards, Mazda would like to confirm its interpretation of FMVSS 108; Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

In Mazda's proposed system, an electronic control unit adjusts an additional reflector's position to as much as thirty degrees to each side of the zero degree position in accordance with changes in steering angle. Automatic return of the reflectors t o the zero position occurs when the steering angle returns to zero degrees.

According to our interpretation of FMVSS 108, headlamps cannot be equipped with adjustable reflectors (S4.1.1.36). The only relevant provision applicable to fog lamps and cornering lamps is the requirement that they not impair the effectiveness of re quired vehicle lighting equipment (S4.1.3). Are we correct in concluding that although it will not be possible to introduce our adjustable reflector lamp as a headlamp, it may be possible to introduce it as a fog or cornering lamp, assuming the above pr ovision is met?

We would appreciate your interpretation of these issues at your earliest convenience. Please do not limit your discussion to the above regulations, but also address any other regulations and automotive safety considerations that might be pertinent.

ID: nht88-3.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/07/88

FROM: LARRY P. EGLEY

TITLE: AN APPEAL FOR VARIANT INTERPRETATION OF NHTSA STANDARDS AS THEY RELATE TO BRAKE LIGHTS AND THE SUDDEN STOP FLASHER (SSF)

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/09/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; REDBOOK A33 [2]; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 01/17/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 3028; LETTER DATED 05/23/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KAT HLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 2530; REPORT DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, REQUEST FOR EVALUATION / INTERPRETATION OF PROPOSED INVENTION SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; LETTER DATED 07/ 13/88 FROM KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; LETTER DATED 06/23/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA; OCC 2256; LETTER DATED 06/20/88 FROM LEWIS S. BUCHANAN -- EPA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; OCC 2199; LETTER DATED 06/09/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO LEWIS BUCHANAN

TEXT: It is assumed that NHTSA standards relating to automobile brake lights require that brake lights be steady burning. If so, this would exclude a device such as the SSF.

However, I appeal for a variant interpretation which would allow use of the SSF for the following reasons:

1. The SSF would actuate only rarely - perhaps as little as 1% of all brake applications. The highway would not be "filled with blinking lights." Furthermore, actuation would be only momentary because heavy deceleration cannot be sustained for more tha n a few seconds. The deceleration level at which the SSF would actuate would be determined and preset during development and testing and the point of actuation would be set at a level which maintains the respect of drivers. This means rare actuation in only the final - but critical - segment of the deceleration envelope. In fact, I would request that NHTSA establish standards that specify factory-sealed units and standardize deceleration limits under which the SSF actuates to insure infrequent actuat ion.

2. The concept of flashing tail lights to get the attention of drivers has already been approved in the hazard warning system.

3. Whether the SSF could significantly improve safety is the primary consideration. Any device which could prevent a significant percentage of high-speed rear-end crashes, ruptured gas tanks, and possible serious injuries or fatalities would seem to be in the best interest of NHTSA and in the best interests of American families traveling U.S. highways.

4. Development of the SSF would be expensive and I am not willing to undertake that expense unless NHTSA would indicate at least tentative acceptance, subject to demonstration and testing of a working model. I think this is a fair and reasonable reques t.

ID: 1984-3.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/31/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: K. Yamada -- Technical Research Group, Toyota Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 6/26/89 letter from Stephen P. Wood to Melanie Turner (A33; Std. 205); 4/13/78 letter from Joseph J. Levin to Moe Pare (Std. 205); 11/3/88 letter from Melanie Turner to Erika Z. Jones (OCC 2777)

TEXT:

August 6, 1984

Mr. Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel NHTSA NOA-30 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

SUBJECT: Request for Clarification of FMVSS 205

According to FMVSS 205, the windshield glass of a passenger car must have marks on it, such as "DOT" and the manufacturer's code mark. But, we wonder if any problem would be caused from a compliance point of view if the mark were to appear underneath the moldings when the car was assembled? Please review the diagram below.

"INSERT"

I look forward to your reply. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION K. Yamada Assistant Manager Technical Research Group U.S. Office

KY:gcm

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration AUG 31 1984

Mr. K. Yamada Assistant Manager Technical Research Group Toyota Motor Corporation One Harmon Plaza Secaucus, New Jersey 07094

Dear Mr. Yamada:

This responds to your letter of August 6, 1984, concerning Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. You asked whether the "DOT" symbol and manufacturer's code mark required by the standard must be visible when a windshield installed in a passenger car. You explained that the windshield molding may cover the required marks.

The certification requirements of section S6 of the standard do not require the markings to remain visible after installation the glazing on a glazing in accordance with the standard and as long as the markings are not removed by the vehicle manufacturer, there is no prohibition against covering the markings. The agency does, however, urge manufacturers to place the DOT symbol and manufacturer's code mark in a visible location whenever possible. Having the symbol and code in a vehicle location enables State motor vehicle inspection officials and U.S. Customs officials to easily determine if the glazing in the vehicle conforms to our standard.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 0788

Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen
Manager, Vehicle Regulations
Volkswagen of America, Inc.
3000 Hamlin Road
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This responds to your letter of March 6, 1995, asking for an interpretation of the license plate requirements of Standard No. 108.

SAE J587 OCT81 is the SAE standard that has been incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108 for license plate lamps. You ask for confirmation of your interpretation that "paragraph 6.1 of SAE J587, which relates solely to the mounting angle of the license plate and not to the performance of the license plate lamp, is not included in the requirements of FMVSS 108." This paragraph requires that, when the license plate lamp is mounted on the vehicle, the angle between the plane of the license plate and the plane on which the vehicle stands will be 90 degrees plus or minus 15 degrees. You believe that "license plate mounting for visibility is a matter of concern for State law enforcement agencies and Volkswagen is not aware of any State laws that make reference to SAE J587 or that specify the mounting angle of the license plate." However, you acknowledge "that paragraphs 6.5 and 6.6 of SAE J587 specifying the angle of incidence of the lamp to the plate at a minimum of 8 degrees is part of FMVSS 108 and is intended to assure that the lamp illuminates the license plate." You believe "that a design which meets the 8 degree requirement and in which the plate is mounted so as to be clearly visible to an observer at the rear of the vehicle meets the intent and requirements of State laws and FMVSS 108, even if the angle of the plate itself is 15 degrees from the vertical."

We cannot agree with your interpretation. Tables I and III have incorporated SAE J587 in its entirety, and there is no exclusion of paragraph 6.1 in Standard No. 108. To be sure, a plate may continue to be visible when it is mounted more than 15 degrees from the vertical, but the 15 degree

limitation of paragraph 6.1 is necessary to ensure its legibility as well. The fact that the States and the Uniform Vehicle Code are silent on the point is legally irrelevant. If a State has a license plate mounting requirement, 49 U.S.C. 30103 requires it to be identical to the Federal requirement.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/24/95

ID: nht81-2.41

DATE: 07/01/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Trelleborg AB, Tire Division

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking for information concerning the requirements of Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR @ 571.119), as it applies to motorcycle tires. Specifically, you asked what markings must be on the sidewalls of knobby motorcross tires (motorcycle tires designed for off-road use) to satisfy the requirements of Standard 119.

If your company designs the tires exclusively for off-road use, with no expectation that they will be used when the motorcycle is on the public roads, Standard 119 is not applicable to the tires. Therefore, no markings would be required on the sidewall of the tires. On the other hand, if you believe the motorcross tires will, in fact, be used on the public roads, as well as off-road, they must meet the marking requirements specified in section S6.5 of Standard No. 119 (copy enclosed).

Standard No. 119 and its marking requirements apply to all new tires designed for highway use on non-passenger-car motor vehicles. In response to the petitions for reconsideration of Standard 119, the agency stated that manufacturers of motorcross tires would have to determine if the tires were designed for highway use (see 39 FR 5191, February 11, 1974, copy enclosed). In the absence of a showing to the contrary, however, this agency would assume that motorcycles equipped with motocross tires are ridden on the public highways to and from race competition or trail use, which would mean the tires are subject to the requirements of Standard 119.

Following the publication of the above-mentioned notice, a manufacturer of motocross tires requested an interpretation of Standard 119, and stated that its motocross tires are not suitable for use on public roads, and are not designed for such use. The agency responded that such tires are not subject to the requirements of Standard 119, based on this set of circumstances.

However, as noted above, each manufacturer must make this determination. Please note that if you decide that the tires are not subject to Standard 119, 49 CFR Part 574 prohibits the DOT certification label from appearing on the sidewall of the tire. Please further note that a manufacturer's determination of this point is not dispositive. That is, this agency has authority to independently re-examine the manufacturer's determination. If the manufacturer's determination was incorrect, the manufacturer would be liable for civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 for each tire imported into this country which did not meet all the requirements of Standard 119. If you need any further information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

U.S. Department of Transportation -- National Highway Traffic Administration

FMVSS-119 Motorcycle Tires

Gentlemen,

Trelleborg AB, a Swedish Tire Manufacturer, Code no LW, plan to export motorcycle tires for motocross ( = Not for highway use) to USA.

Actual sizes are: 4.50-17 and 4.50-18.

Please tell us what we have to observe regarding the text on the tire walls.

Sincerely,

TRELLEBORG AB -- Tire Division;

Erik Sundelin -- Diplomengineer

ID: aiam5302

"Dear Mr. Siris: This responds to your letter of December 8, 1993 following a phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff. Your letter requested 'confirmation that a manufacturer's compliance with a given NHTSA standard does not necessarily exonerate the manufacturer.' You also asked whether there might be any standards other than Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, which might apply to a '1987 Ford vehicle which allowed the automatic transmission to be shifted while the key was not in the steering column.' Section 108(k) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(k)) states: Compliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard issued under this title does not exempt any person from any liability under common law. Thus, you are correct that a vehicle's compliance with all applicable safety standards does not necessarily exonerate the manufacturer from liability under other causes of action. With regard to your second question, S4.2.1 of Standard No. 114 states that, with certain exceptions,: the key-locking system required by S4.2 in each vehicle which has an automatic transmission with a 'park' position shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in 'park' or becomes locked in 'park' as the direct result of removing the key. However, as explained in your phone conversation with Ms. Versailles, this requirement was added to Standard No. 114 in 1991 and was effective September 1, 1992. There was no Federal standard which prohibited a 1987 vehicle from having an automatic transmission which could be shifted when the key was removed. I am also unaware of any other standard or regulation containing such a requirement. 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. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";