70656 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2005 / Notices 

Importer 90–005), petitioned NHTSA to 

decide whether 2001 Chevrolet Blazer 

MPVs are eligible for importation into 

the United States. NHTSA published 

notice of the petition on November 16, 

2004 (69 FR 67208) to afford an 

opportunity for public comment. The 

reader is referred to that notice for a 

thorough description of the petition. 

One comment was received in 

response to the notice of the petition 

from General Motors Corporation 

(‘‘GM’’), the manufacturer of the 2001 

Chevrolet Blazer. In this comment, GM 

stated that during the 2001 model year, 

GM and its subsidiaries and affiliates 

assembled Chevrolet Blazers at several 

locations around the world. Those 

intended for sale in the United States, 

Canada, and some other world markets, 

were produced at two assembly plants 

located within the United States, at 

Linden, New Jersey (identified by plant 

code ‘‘K’’ in the 11th position of the 

vehicle identification number or ‘‘VIN’’

assigned to the vehicle) and at Moraine, 

Ohio, (identified by plant code ‘‘2’’ in 

the 11th position of the VIN). 

GM stated that production of 2001 

Chevrolet Blazers also occurred at a 

number of plants outside of the United 

States. GM stated that in order to satisfy 

unique market conditions and local 

regulations, vehicles produced at these 

foreign plants differed from those 

produced domestically in a number of 

respects, including the interior trim, 

chassis, and powertrain components 

with which they were built. Owing to 

the design and part differences between 

the 2001 Chevrolet Blazers produced 

domestically, and those produced 

overseas for foreign markets, GM stated 

that there is no assurance that the 

vehicles produced overseas would 

comply with, or are capable of being 

readily altered to conform to all 

applicable FMVSS. GM noted that it 

does not typically perform tests or 

evaluations to determine the 

compliance of foreign market vehicles 

with the FMVSS because the vehicles 

were never intended for sale or use in 

the U.S. market. GM further observed 

that Blazers built overseas for foreign 

markets may contain locally sourced 

parts that are not subject to the same 

manufacturing, warranty, and approval 

process used within GM’s North 

American operations and that these 

foreign sourced parts may have an 

impact on the vehicles’ conformity with 

the FMVSS. 

In light of these considerations, GM 

expressed the opinion that only the U.S. 

manufactured versions of the subject 

vehicles (those with plant codes ‘‘K’’ or 

‘‘2’’ in the 11th position of their VINs) 

should be considered substantially 

similar to vehicles originally 

manufactured for sale in the U.S. and 

capable of being modified to comply 

with the FMVSS. GM contended that 

‘‘* * * subject vehicles manufactured at 

all other locations should not be 

considered substantially similar to 

vehicles originally manufactured for 

sale in the U.S. and, thus, not eligible 

for importation.’’

NHTSA accorded WETL an 

opportunity to respond to GM’s 

comments. WETL stated that the 2001 

Chevrolet Blazers that are the subject of 

its petition are U.S. manufactured 

vehicles with plant codes ‘‘K’’ or ‘‘2’’ in 

the 11th position of their VINs. WETL 

therefore did not challenge GM’s 

contention that vehicles with plant 

codes other than these should not be 

considered substantially similar to U.S.- 

certified models and therefore eligible 

for importation. In view of GM’s 

comments and WETL’s response, 

NHTSA decided to grant import 

eligibility only to 2001 Chevrolet 

Blazers with the plant code ‘‘K’’ or ‘‘2’’

in the eleventh character of their VINs. 

Vehicle Eligibility Number for Subject 

Vehicles 

The importer of a vehicle admissible 

under any final decision must indicate 

on the form HS–7 accompanying entry 

the appropriate vehicle eligibility 

number indicating that the vehicle is 

eligible for entry. VSP–461 is the 

vehicle eligibility number assigned to 

vehicles admissible under this notice of 

final decision. 

Final Decision 

Accordingly, on the basis of the 

foregoing, NHTSA hereby decided that 

2001 Chevrolet Blazer MPVs that were 

not originally manufactured to comply 

with all applicable FMVSS, but that 

have been assigned vehicle 

identification numbers in which the 

letter ‘‘K’’ or the number ‘‘2’’ is the 

eleventh character, are substantially 

similar to 2001 Chevrolet Blazer MPVs 

originally manufactured for sale in the 

United States and certified under 49 

U.S.C. 30115, and are capable of being 

readily altered to conform to all 

applicable FMVSS. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and 

(b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority 

at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. 

Claude H. Harris, 

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 05–23099 Filed 11–21–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Petition for Exemption From the 

Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention 

Standard; DaimlerChrysler 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption. 

SUMMARY: This document grants in full 

the petition of DaimlerChrysler 

Corporation (DaimlerChrysler) for an 

exemption of a high-theft line, the 

Dodge Charger, from the parts-marking 

requirements of the Federal Motor 

Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. 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 partsmarking requirements of the Theft 

Prevention Standard. 

DATES: The exemption granted by this 

notice is effective beginning with model 

year (MY) 2007. 

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 phone number is (202) 366–

0846. Her fax number is (202) 493–2290. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

petition dated March 30, 2005, 

DaimlerChrysler requested an 

exemption from the parts-marking 

requirements of the theft prevention 

standard (49 CFR part 541) for the 

Dodge Charger 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 § 543.5 and the specific 

content requirements of § 543.6. Under 

§ 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition 

NHTSA to grant exemptions for one line 

of its vehicle lines per year. 

DaimlerChrysler stated that all Dodge 

Charger 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2005 / Notices 70657 

device to be installed on the Dodge 

Charger 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 

Dodge Charger will be at least as 

effective as compliance with the partsmarking 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 partsmarking 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 partsmarking 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 partsmarking requirements. 

Based on the evidence submitted by 

DaimlerChrysler, the agency believes 

that the antitheft device for the Dodge 

Charger 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 § 543.6(a)(3): 

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 partsmarking 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 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 § 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 10, 2005. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 05–23035 Filed 11–21–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P