Skip to main content
Search Interpretations

Interpretation ID: GF005229-2

    [ ]


    Dear [ ]

    This responds to your letter asking whether a key locking system, which includes an engine control module immobilizer, could be used to meet the requirements of S4.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 114, Theft Protection. More specifically, you asked whether such a system would meet the requirements of S4.2 by (a) preventing normal activation of the vehicles engine by removal of the key, and (b) preventing vehicle forward self-mobility by the presence of the immobilizer. As discussed below, the answer to your question is yes.

    Before I address your question, I note that you requested confidential treatment for the identity of your company and for yourself, as well as for additional information provided in your letter. You also provided a redacted version of your letter. I agree to keep your name and the name of your company confidential. All information in bold brackets [      ] in our letter will be kept confidential. The redacted version of your letter will be made public. We will send a separate letter providing a complete response to your request for confidentiality.


    SECTION S4.2

    FMVSS No. 114 specifies requirements for theft protection to reduce the incidence of crashes resulting from unauthorized operation of a motor vehicle. S4.2 of the standard specifies:

    Each vehicle shall have a key-locking system which, whenever the key is removed, prevents:

    (a) The normal activation of the vehicles engine or motor; and

    (b) Either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both.

    As you noted in your letter, "self-mobility" is not defined in the standard. Manufacturers have typically prevented forward self-mobility by installing transmission lever locks.


    YOUR SYSTEM

    Your vehicle features an engine control module immobilizer system that uses a multi-level coding process (hash code), which differentiates between a constant key code and a continuously varying authorization code.

    First, for normal vehicle activation, an operator must insert the properly coded electronic key into the electronic ignition lock. After insertion, a 2-way data exchange takes place for positive verification of the drive authorization. The engine can be started only after the positive verification occurs.

    Second, if a key without the proper electronic code is used, or an attempt is made to bypass the electronic ignition lock in order to start the vehicle through other means (e.g. , through "hot-wiring" of the vehicle), the immobilizer will lock out the engine control module effectively preventing engine operation.

    You believe that the presence of this engine control module immobilizer prevents forward self-mobility in the context of S4.2(b) because without engine operation, the vehicle is incapable of moving forward under its own power.


    DISCUSSION

    We agree that the type of system you describe would meet the requirements of S4.2(a) because it prevents normal activation of the vehicles engine when the key is removed. We also agree that the type of system you describe would meet the requirements of S4.2(b) because engine control module immobilizer prevents vehicle forward self-mobility when the key is removed.

    As you discussed in your letter, the two provisions of S4.2 were intended to reduce unauthorized operation of a motor vehicle in different ways. Provision (a) was intended to prevent unauthorized operation of a motor vehicle by requiring that the vehicle could not be started without the key. Provision (b) was intended to further impede unauthorized operation of a motor vehicle by preventing vehicle operation outside the normal activation method. That is, if an attempt were made to circumvent the ignition lock (through "hot-wiring," for example), another device would prevent unauthorized operation of a motor vehicle.

    We note that in promulgating FMVSS No. 114, the agency expressed concern about car thieves who could bypass the ignition lock. In response to this concern, the agency decided to require a device, which would prevent either self-mobility or steering even if the ignition lock were bypassed (see 33 FR 4471, April 27, 1968).

    The engine control module immobilizer described in your letter satisfies the requirements of S4.2(b) because it locks out the engine control module if an attempt is made to start the vehicle without the correct key or to bypass the electronic ignition system. When the engine control module is locked, the vehicle is not capable of forward self-mobility because it is incapable of moving forward under its own power.

    I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

    Sincerely,

    Jacqueline Glassman
    Chief Counsel

    ref:114
    d.9/24/04