Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; DaimlerChrysler, 70658-70659 [05-23036]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 22, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70658-70659]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23036]



[[Page 70658]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention 
Standard; DaimlerChrysler

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice grants in full the petition of DaimlerChrysler 
Corporation (DaimlerChrysler) for an exemption in accordance with Sec.  
543.9(c)(2) of 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from the Theft Prevention 
Standard, for the Chrysler 300C vehicle line beginning with model year 
(MY) 2006. This petition is granted because the agency has determined 
that the antitheft device to be placed on the line as standard 
equipment is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor 
vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the 
Theft Prevention Standard.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with 
model year (MY) 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rosalind Proctor, Office of 
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Proctor's telephone 
number is (202) 366-0846. Her fax number is (202) 493-2290.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated August 13, 2005, 
DaimlerChrysler requested an exemption from the parts-marking 
requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR part 541) for the 
Chrysler 300C vehicle line. The petition has been filed pursuant to 49 
CFR Part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, based 
on the installation of an antitheft device as standard equipment for an 
entire vehicle line. DaimlerChrysler's submission is considered a 
complete petition as required by 49 CFR 543.7, in that it meets the 
general requirements contained in Sec.  543.5 and the specific content 
requirements of Sec.  543.6. Under Sec.  543.5(a), a manufacturer may 
petition NHTSA to grant exemptions for one line of its vehicle lines 
per year.
    DaimlerChrysler stated that all Chrysler 300C vehicles would be 
equipped with a standard Sentry Key Immobilizer System (SKIS) antitheft 
device. In its petition, DaimlerChrysler provided a detailed 
description and diagram of the identity, design, and location of the 
components of the antitheft device for the vehicle line. The SKIS 
antitheft device to be installed on the Chrysler 300C is a transponder-
based, passive immobilizer antitheft device designed to provide 
protection against unauthorized vehicle use. The immobilizer feature is 
activated when the key is removed from the ignition switch. Once 
activated, only a valid key inserted into the ignition switch will 
disable immobilization and allow the vehicle to start and continue to 
run. The antitheft device does not provide any visible or audible 
indication of unauthorized entry by means of flashing vehicle lights or 
sounding of the horn.
    The SKIS consists of the Sentry Key Remote Entry Module (SKREEM), 
the Powertrain Control Module (PCM), and the Sentry Key, which 
collectively perform the immobilizer function. The SKREEM is the 
primary component of the SKIS. When the ignition switch is turned to 
the ``ON'' position, the SKREEM transmits a radio frequency (RF) signal 
to the transponder in the ignition key. If the response received 
identifies the key as valid, the SKREEM sends a valid key message to 
PCM over the PCI data bus, and the PCM allows the engine to continue to 
run. To avoid any perceived delay when starting the vehicle with a 
valid key and to prevent unburned fuel from entering the exhaust, the 
engine is permitted to run for no more than 2 seconds if an invalid key 
is used. If the response identifies the key as invalid, or if no 
response is received from the key transponder, the SKREEM sends an 
invalid key message to the PCM. The PCM will disable engine operation 
(after the initial 2 second run) based upon the status of the SKREEM 
messages.
    According to DaimlerChrysler, each ignition key used in the 
antitheft device has an integral transponder chip included on the 
circuit board. The ignition key must be cut to match the mechanical 
coding of the ignition lock cylinder and programmed for operation of 
the Remote Keyless Entry (RKE) system. Additionally, each new key is 
programmed with a unique transponder identification code by the 
manufacturer and must be recognized by the SKREES as a valid key. The 
Sentry Key transponder cannot be adjusted or repaired. If it is faulty 
or damaged, the entire key and RKE must be replaced.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, 
DaimlerChrysler provided information on the reliability and durability 
of its device. To ensure the reliability and durability of the device, 
it conducted tests based on its own specified standards. 
DaimlerChrysler provided information on tests conducted and believes 
that the device is reliable and durable since the device complied with 
its specified requirements for each test. DaimlerChrysler stated that 
all of the devices undergo a series of three functional tests prior to 
being shipped from the supplier to the vehicle assembly plant for 
installation in the vehicles. Additionally, the antitheft device 
incorporates an indicator light to convey information on the status of 
the system to the customer.
    DaimlerChrysler believes that the immobilizer system proposed for 
the Chrysler 300C will be at least as effective as compliance with the 
parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard. 
DaimlerChrysler stated that its experience with vehicles subject to the 
parts-marking requirement that are subsequently equipped with ignition 
immobilizer systems as standard equipment indicate that even lower 
theft rates can be expected from vehicles equipped with standard 
ignition immobilizer systems as that proposed.
    For supportive purposes, DaimlerChrysler offered the Jeep Grand 
Cherokee vehicles as an example of vehicles subject to Part 541 parts-
marking requirements that subsequently are equipped with ignition 
immobilizer systems as standard equipment. NHTSA's theft rates for the 
Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicles for model years 1995 through 1998 were 
5.5545, 7.0188, 4.3163, and 4.3557, respectively, all significantly 
higher than the 1990/1991 median theft rate. DaimlerChrysler indicated 
that, since the introduction of immobilizer systems as standard 
equipment on the Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicles, the average theft rate 
for the MY 1999 through 2003 is 2.6537, which is significantly lower 
than the 1990/1991 median theft rate of 3.5826. The Jeep Grand Cherokee 
vehicles were granted an exemption from the parts-marking requirements 
beginning with MY 2004 vehicles.
    On the basis of this comparison, DaimlerChrysler has concluded that 
the proposed antitheft device is no less effective than those devices 
installed on lines for which NHTSA has already granted full exemption 
from the parts-marking requirements.
    Based on the evidence submitted by DaimlerChrysler, the agency 
believes that the antitheft device for the Chrysler 300C vehicle line 
is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle 
theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft 
Prevention Standard (49 CFR 541). The agency concludes that the device 
will provide four of the five types of performance listed in Sec.  
543.6(a)(3):

[[Page 70659]]

Promoting activation; attracting attention to the efforts of 
unauthorized persons to enter or operate a vehicle by means other than 
a key; preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by unauthorized 
persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; 
and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device.
    As required by 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.6 (a)(4) and (5), the 
agency finds that DaimlerChrysler has provided adequate reasons for its 
belief that the antitheft device will reduce and deter theft. This 
conclusion is based on the information DaimlerChrysler provided about 
its device. For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full 
DaimlerChrysler petition for exemption for the vehicle line from the 
parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541.
    If DaimlerChrysler decides not to use the exemption for this line, 
it must formally notify the agency, and, thereafter, the line must be 
fully marked as required by 49 CFR Parts 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of 
major component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA notes that if DaimlerChrysler wishes in the future to modify 
the device on which this exemption is based, the company may have to 
submit a petition to modify the exemption. Part 543.7(d) states that a 
Part 543 exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line 
exempted under this part and equipped with the anti-theft device on 
which the line's exemption is based. Further, ``543.9(c)(2) provides 
for the submission of petitions ``to modify an exemption to permit the 
use of an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one 
specified in that exemption.''
    The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that Part 
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself. 
The agency did not intend Part 543 to require the submission of a 
modification petition for every change to the components or design of 
an antitheft device. The significance of many such changes could be de 
minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the manufacturer 
contemplates making any changes the effects of which might be 
characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency before 
preparing and submitting a petition to modify.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 
1.50.

    Issued on: November 21, 2005.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 05-23036 Filed 11-21-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P