ID: GF009787

Mr. Dale Kardos
Dale Kardos & Associates, Inc.
3906 Huntington Street, NW
Washington, DC 20015




Dear Mr. Kardos:

This responds to your letter asking whether a "keyless-go" key-locking system being contemplated by your client would meet the requirements of S4.2 of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 114, Theft protection.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.  The following represents our opinion based on the facts you provided in your letter.

Your letter describes a "keyless-go" system that unlocks the door when an electronic key code is transmitted from the key to the vehicle.If the door is opened following transmission of the key code to the vehicle, the steering column is automatically unlocked.For engine activation, an operator must insert the key into the electronic ignition lock. As soon as the key is removed from the electronic ignition lock, the steering column locks, the immobilizer is activated, and the electronic key code is removed from the system.

You ask if S4.2 of FMVSS No. 114 permits a system that unlocks the steering column when an electronic key code is transmitted from the key to the vehicle, and the driver opens the door.

S4.2 of FMVSS No. 114 reads as follows:

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

(a) The normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor; and

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

We note that the standard does not specify under what conditions a steering column may become unlocked.However, the system described in your letter appears to operate in the manner consistent with the requirements of S4.2 because removal of the key from the electronic ignition lock prevents activation of the engine and locks the steering.

NHTSA has issued several letters of interpretation pertaining to keyless systems similar to the one described in your letter (see our 7/17/2002 and 8/15/2002 letters to unnamed parties).You may find these letters useful in ascertaining whether your system complies with other requirements in FMVSS No. 114.

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

2 Enclosures
ref:114
d.2/22/05

ID: 0672

Robert D. Dods, Staff Assistant
Honolulu Office
Senator Daniel K. Inouye
Room 7325
Prince Kuhio Federal Building
300 Ala Moana Boulevard
Honolulu HI 96850-4975

Dear Mr. Dods:

Joseph Cindrich, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Regional Administrator, has forwarded for reply your letter to him of January 25, 1995. You asked for verification that the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards apply to the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands (CNMI), and "if the office responsible for enforcement would notify the appropriate CNMI officials of the compliance requirements."

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards clearly apply in the CNMI. In 1994, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., was recodified as 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 - Motor Vehicle Safety. As part of the recodification, "the Northern Mariana Islands" was added to the definition of a "State" (49 CFR 30102(a)(10)). This means that it is a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), (cited in the 1987 letter as 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)), to import a vehicle into the CNMI that does not comply with the Safety Standards.

The recodification reflected existing law, and the Safety Standards applied long before it occurred. I enclose a copy of a letter that this Office sent to Ellen A. Lockwood, Assistant United States Attorney, Guam, on December 30, 1987, in which we informed her that the Safety Standards applied in the CNMI at that time, even though the regulations of the U.S. Customs Service did not. I find no record of a response from her. Given the geographical proximity of the United States Attorney's office to the CNMI and the fact that NHTSA has no employees west of California, we recommend that apparent violations be reported to that Office.

Between the 1987 letter and the recodification of 1994, Congress enacted the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-562) which revoked the joint NHTSA - U.S. Customs regulatory authority of 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(3). Pursuant to the 1988 legislation, NHTSA issued its own import regulation, 49 CFR Part 591, which has superseded the previous joint NHTSA-U.S. Customs regulation, 19 CFR 12.80, with respect to the importation of vehicles and equipment subject to the Safety Standards. As the 1987 letter notes, 12.80 did not apply to the CNMI because the CNMI is outside the Customs Territory of the United States. However, Part 591 clearly applies in the CNMI since it implements Chapter 301.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:VSA d:3/9/95

ID: nht92-5.23

DATE: July 9, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Hank Hessey -- Hebco Products, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/21/92 from Hank Hessey to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7242)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking for our opinion on the "requirements and testing responsibilities" that apply to air brake hose manufacturers under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 106, Brake Hoses. After receiving your letter, Ms. Fujita of my staff telephoned you to clarify our understanding of your question.

You explained in the telephone conversation that your concern relates to the certification responsibilities of a brake hose manufacturer versus those of a brake hose assembly manufacturer. You are particularly interested in the standard's burst strength (S7.3.9) and tensile strength requirements (7.3.10). You ask whether it is the hose manufacturer or the assembly manufacturer, or both, who must certify to those requirements.

Standard 106 places the responsibility for certifying to S7.3.9 and 7.3.10 on the assembly manufacturer, not the hose manufacturer. Both S7.3.9 and 7.3.10 apply, by their terms, to the "assembly." S7.3.9 states: "An air brake hose assembly shall not rupture when exposed to hydrostatic pressure of 800 psi...." Similarly, S7.3.10 states: "An air brake hose assembly" shall meet the tensile strength requirement. Thus, neither S7.3.9 nor 7.3.10 apply to the hose."

The wording of the test procedures for S7.3.9 and 7.3.10 reflect the fact that those sections apply to the assembly only. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration follows the procedures described in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards when conducting compliance tests. The procedures for both sections refer to a test of the "assembly," not the "hose." The burst strength procedure, specified in S8.8 of Standard 106, expressly states: "Utilize an air brake hose assembly." Similarly, the tensile strength procedure, specified in S8.9, expressly states: "Attach an air brake hose assembly to the testing machine...." Neither of these procedures specify testing of the "hose" apart from the assembly.

Because S7.2.9 and 7.3.10 apply to the assembly, the assembly manufacturer is responsible for a failure to comply with S7.3.9 and 7.3.10, even if the failure is due to a deficiency with the hose. It is the responsibility of the assembly manufacturer to ensure that the products used in the manufacture of the assembly will enable it to meet all applicable requirements of Standard 106.

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

ID: nht92-1.48

DATE: 12/01/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: T. KOUCHI -- DIRECTOR & GENERAL MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT, DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION DEPT., STANLEY ELECTRIC CO. LTD.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-8-92 FROM T. KOUCHI TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 7857)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 8, 1992, with respect to photometric test methods for a center high-mounted stop lamp using light emitting diodes (LEDs) as light sources.

Your letter presents certain procedures and asks for associated revisions in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. After review, we have come to the conclusion that your method of proposed testing is allowable under Standard No. 108, but more stringent than what the standard requires.

In the section of your letter called "BACKGROUND", you state that you usually follow the technical guidance of SAE J1889 as a standard practice for LED lighting devices. There is no requirement in Standard No. 108 or in any of the SAE standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 that requires you to follow the test methodology of J1889. Thus, when you say that you "must always allow a margin of the same percentage when designing initial light output of the lamp, which necessitates increase in the number of LEDs used, lamp size, product cost, and, therefore, user's expense", you are placing a burden upon yourself that does exist under J1889, but one which is not necessary for designing for compliance with Standard No. 108.

You have proposed a solution for the problem you have created by following J1889, and you provide three specific reasons in support. The third reason is based upon your interpretation of SAE J575's warpage test, under which you test operating cycles of 5 minutes on and 5 minutes off. However, you reference a version of J575 which does not apply to center high-mounted stop lamps. Paragraph S6.1 of Standard No. 108 specifies that J575e, August 1970, applies to high-mounted stop lamps designed to conform to SAE Recommended Practice J186a. SAE J575, August 1970, simply specifies that the device is to be operated in the test in the same manner as it will be operated in service, far different than the cycle method you employ.

Thus, you have requested that we revise Standard No. 108 by adding a new provision that center high-mounted stop lamps shall be energized for a minimum of 5 minutes before measurement of photometric minima. We note that nothing prohibits you from testing in such a manner, but we believe that an amendment of this nature is not required because the present allowable method of testing does not call for it.

You have asked for our comments on four steps of photometric measurement, and our permission to follow them. There is no reason you may not follow them, if you wish, but they are unnecessary to design for compliance under Standard No. 108.

I hope that this is responsive to your questions.

ID: 7857

Air Mail

Mr. T. Kouchi Director & General Manager Automotive Equipment Development & Administration Dept. Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro-ku, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Kouchi:

This responds to your letter of October 8, 1992, with respect to photometric test methods for a center high-mounted stop lamp using light emitting diodes (LEDs) as light sources.

Your letter presents certain procedures and asks for associated revisions in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. After review, we have come to the conclusion that your method of proposed testing is allowable under Standard No. 108, but more stringent than what the standard requires.

In the section of your letter called "BACKGROUND", you state that you usually follow the technical guidance of SAE J1889 as a standard practice for LED lighting devices. There is no requirement in Standard No. 108 or in any of the SAE standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 that requires you to follow the test methodology of J1889. Thus, when you say that you "must always allow a margin of the same percentage when designing initial light output of the lamp, which necessitates increase in the number of LEDs used, lamp size, product cost, and, therefore, user's expense", you are placing a burden upon yourself that does exist under J1889, but one which is not necessary for designing for compliance with Standard No. 108.

You have proposed a solution for the problem you have created by following J1889, and you provide three specific reasons in support. The third reason is based upon your interpretation of SAE J575's warpage test, under which you test operating cycles of 5 minutes on and 5 minutes off. However, you reference a version of J575 which does not apply to center high-mounted stop lamps. Paragraph S6.1 of Standard No. 108 specifies that J575e, August 1970, applies to high-mounted stop lamps designed to conform to SAE Recommended Practice J186a. SAE J575, August 1970, simply specifies that the device is to be operated in the test in the same manner as it will be operated in service, far different than the cycle method you employ.

Thus, you have requested that we revise Standard No. 108 by adding a new provision that center high-mounted stop lamps shall be energized for a minimum of 5 minutes before measurement of photometric minima. We note that nothing prohibits you from testing in such a manner, but we believe that an amendment of this nature is not required because the present allowable method of testing does not call for it.

You have asked for our comments on four steps of photometric measurement, and our permission to follow them. There is no reason you may not follow them, if you wish, but they are unnecessary to design for compliance under Standard No. 108.

I hope that this is responsive to your questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:108 d:12/1/92

ID: 1160

Mr. Lawrence A. Beyer
Attorney at Law
674 Lake Road
Webster, NY 14580

Dear Mr. Beyer:

This responds to your August 28, 1995, "Petition for Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance". You state that "the noncompliance relates to" 49 CFR Part 592.

The effect of an inconsequentiality determination is to relieve a manufacturer of its obligation to notify and remedy when a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard or a safety related defect is determined to exist. The failures you attributed to your client as a registered importer under part 592 do not encompass a failure to bring vehicles into compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or the existence of a safety related defect in vehicles that it has imported. Therefore, there is no legal basis for your "petition". Please read 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120, and 49 CFR Part 556.

The proper forum for your arguments is in response to any penalty the agency may propose to impose on your client for its failure to meet the requirements of Part 592.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:556 d:10/20/95

ID: nht92-9.24

DATE: February 5, 1992

FROM: Robert Salton -- Engineer, Performance Friction Corp.

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/14/92 from Paul J. Rice to Robert Salton (A39; Std. 105)

TEXT:

On the recommendation of your staff, I am requesting an interpretation of a regulation contained in the FMVSS-105 Safety Standard.

The sections in question are:

1. S.5.1.4.1 (Regulations) 2. S.7.11.1.1 (Procedures)

We are unclear about the pedal force requirements during the first fade/recovery test - baseline check stops.

The interpretation will make clear to us exactly what calculation of pedal effort is used to verify compliance during the Fade and Recovery Check Stops. Also, what values of pedal effort would be considered non-compliance (i.e., peak, average, sustained) greater than 10 lbs or less than 0 lbs.

I have spoken with Zack Frazier of your staff and he is familiar with our questions. I regret that no data or vehicle instrumentation traces are available to me at this time.

Please call me if you have any questions. My need is urgent so as to continue brake system development and testing.

ID: nht94-3.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 20, 1994

FROM: Gene Byrd -- Vice President, Anderson Technology

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 571.106 Rev 10/7/91

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 8/18/94: Letter from John Womack to Gene Byrd (Std. 106)

TEXT: Reference: Section S7 Requirements-Air brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings.

Anderson Technology has registered a Trademark (Block Letter T) with NHTSA and intends to produce a range of reusable end fittings for use with SAE J844 Plastic Tube.

Before development we request confirmation as to the applicable sections of FMVSS-571.106 relative to the requirements of reusable end fittings.

For you review, we have concluded the applicable sections of the governing specification to be as follows:

S7.2.2 End Fittings (Markings) S7.3.1 Constriction S7.3.8 Air Pressure Test S7.3.9 Burst Strength S7.3.10 Tensile Strength S7.3.11 Water Absorption and Tensile Strength S7.3.13 End Fitting Corrosion

Of course, we understand the associated Test procedures as found in Section 8 for self certification compliances.

We thank you in advance for your time and response.

ID: nht87-1.70

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/27/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: Mr. James E. Campbell

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. James C. Campbell 2719 So. 29th Street Ft. Pierce, FL 33450

Dear Mr. Campbell:

This is in reply to your letter of December 17, 1986, in which you have asked the following question:

"If someone has a patent on an invention, as in the case of the turn signals, and you at the N.H.T.S.A. make it mandatory that all cars be equipped with that feature, does the inventor retain the marketing rights to that invention, or does he lose those rights once it becomes mandatory?"

The answer to your question is that rights given under a patent issued by the United States Patent Office cannot be divested by the actions of a governmental agency such as the N.H.T.S.A. Were we to require that a patented item of equipment be standard o n all passenger cars, the patent holder would retain all rights. However, it is important that you understand that the agency does not mandate the adoption of equipment of a proprietary nature. By law, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are defin ed as minimum standards for motor vehicle performance; to the extent practicable the standards specify performance requirements to be met (e.g., no more than 5 ounces of fuel spillage in the first 5 minutes following a 30 mph frontal barrier collision), leaving the design solution to the manufacturer who may incorporate proprietary components if he chooses.

The performance requirements of our standards vary in their degree of specificity. In some instances the agency has had to develop fairly specific requirements to ensure uniformity and interchangeability of replacement equipment items such as brake hoses , tires, and lighting equipment. This can increase the likelihood of the incorporation of proprietary elements. Many of the changes which are made to the standards are made in response to petitions from manufacturers of motor vehicles or motor vehicle eq uipment. This is especially true in the area of motor vehicle lighting which is covered by Standard No. instances, a petitioner may request a change which incorporates specifications which are covered by a patent. In these cases, the agency endeavors to insure that the technology is made available on a non-exclusive royalty-free basis to all who wish to use it before amending the standard.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Sir or Madam;

If someone has a patent on an invention, in the case of the turn signals, and you at the N.H.T.S.A make it mandatory that all cars be equipped with that feature, does the inventor retain the marketing rights to than invention, or does he lose those right s once it becomes mandatory?

Sincerely;

James E. Campbell

ID: 1984-1.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/16/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pekka Suuronen -- Hella Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MR. Pekka Suuronen Hella, Inc. P.O. Box 1064 Cranford, NJ 07016

This is in response to your letter of November 30, 1983, clarifying your earlier requests for an interpretation of Standard No. 108. You have asked whether replaceable bulb headlamps may be manufactured in sizes identical to the current sizes for sealed beam headlamps, provided that they meet Stardard No. 108 in all other respects.

The replaceable bulb headlamp amendment was adopted with the intent of allowing Vehicle manufacturers greater flexibility in the front end design in order to improve aerodynamics. The amendment allows an original equipment two-lamp system of no specified dimensions, and replacement lamps for these systems. It was not directed towards replacement lamps for existing headlamp systems. However, because no exterior dimensions for headlamps are specified by the amendment, replaceable bulb headlamps intended for use in a two-lamp system, with exterior dimension of sealed beam round or rectangular two-headlamp systems, would be permissible assuming that they meet all other requirements of Standard No. 108, including providing one of the two aiming pad locations specified for replaceable bulb headlamps. However, until Standard No. 108 is amended to allow a four-lamp replaceable bulb headlamp system, these lamps are precluded from being manufactured to replace today's sealed beam round and rectangular sealed beem headlamps used in four-lamp systems.

I hope this provides the clarification you seek.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 30, 1983

NHTSA 400 Seventh St. NW Washington, DC 20590 ATTN: Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Berndt,

Thank you for your letter of November 17, 1983, reference "NOA-30". I would like to clarify my question. I realize there is only one "legal" replaceable headlamp bulb which I call "Ford bulb", lacking a more official nomenclature.

By " six standard sizes" I mean headlamps, not bulbs. In other words, headlamps that would replace current six types 2D1, 1C1, 2C1, 1A1, 2A1, and 2B1. However, these proposed lamps would have a replaceable "Ford bulb" and a sealing just like in the Ford headlamp. In the case if Type 1 headlamp, only the high beam filament would be connected. The photometrics would meet the current SAE standards, the lamp would be mechanically rimable and the new proposed lamps would comply to all other applicable safety standards, as well.

My question is, would these kinds of headlamps be highway legal?

Please note that Racemark no longer is the importer of Hella. Please correspond to the address shown on the letterhead.

Sincerely,

PEKKA SUURONEN PS / lP