63014 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 204 / Friday, October 20, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

§§ 97.23, 97.25, 97.27, 97.29, 97.31, 97.33,

97.35 [Amended]

2. Part 97 is amended to read as

follows:

By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/

DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME

or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME,

LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME;

§ 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS,

ILS/DME, ISMLS, MLS, MLS/DME,

MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs;

§ 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35

COPTER SIAPs, identified as follows:

* * * Effective November 2, 2000

Medford, OR, Rogue Valley IntlMedford, ILS/DME RWY 14, Amdt

14, CANCELLED

Medford, OR, Rogue Valley

International-Medford, ILS RWY 14,

Orig

Scappoose, OR, Scappoose Industrial

Airpark, LOC/DME RWY 15, Amdt

1

Dallas, TX, Dallas-Love Fields, ILS RWY

13L, Amdt 31

* * * Effective November 30, 2000

Gulf Shores, AL, Jack Edwards, RNAV

RWY 9, Orig

Prattville, AL, Autauga County, RNAV

RWY 9, Orig

Port Heiden, AK, Port Heiden, VOR/

DME RWY 13, Amdt 1,

CANCELLED

Orlando, FL, Orlando Sanford, ILS RWY

27R, Orig

Chicago/Aurora, IL, Aurora Muni,

RNAV RWY 15, Orig

Chicago/Aurora, IL, Aurora Muni,

RNAV RWY 33, Orig

Louisville, KY, Bowman Field, VOR OR

GPS RWY 14, Amdt 9A,

CANCELLED

Louisville, KY, Bowman Field, VOR

RWY 32, Amdt 14A, CANCELLED

Alexandria, LA, Alexandria Intl, RNAV

RWY 14, Orig

Hammond, LA, Hammond Muni, NDB

OR GPS RWY 18, Amdt 2B

Hyannis, MA, Barnstable MuniBoardman/Polando Field, RNAV

RWY 24, Orig

Alexandria, MN, Chandler Field, ILS

RWY 31, Orig

Alexandria, MN, Chandler Field, NDB

RWY 31, Amdt 5

Olivia, MN, Olivia Regional, RNAV

RWY 29, Orig

Picayune, MS, Picayune Muni, RNAV

RWY 18, Orig

Picayune, MS, Picayune Muni, RNAV

RWY 31, Orig

Picayune, MS, Picayune Muni, RNAV

RWY 36, Orig

Malden, MO, Malden Muni, VOR/DME

RNAV OR GPS RWY 13, Orig-A

Malden, MO, Malden Muni, VOR OR

GPS RWY 31, Amdt 7B

Mexico, MO, Mexico Memorial, VOR/

DME RWY 24, Amdt 1A

Mexico, MO, Mexico Memorial, GPS

RWY 6, Orig-A

Mexico, MO, Mexico Memorial, GPS

RWY 24, Orig-A

Perryville, MO, Perryville Muni, VOR/

DME RNAV RWY 20, Amdt 3A

Perryville, MO, Perryville Muni, GPS

RWY 2, Orig-A

Perryville, MO, Perryville Muni, GPS

RWY 20, Orig-A

Popular Bluff, MO, Poplar Bluff Muni,

GPS RWY 18, Orig-B

Sedalia, MO, Sedalia Memorial, GPS

RWY 18, Orig-B

Sedalia, MO, Sedalia Memorial, GPS

RWY 36, Orig-B

Sikeston, MO, Sikeston Memorial Muni,

VOR RWY 20, Amdt 3C

Poplar, MT, Poplar, RNAV RWY 9, Orig

Poplar, MT, Poplar, RNAV RWY27, Orig

Montgomery, NY, Orange County, GPS

RWY 3, Orig, CANCELLED

Montgomery, NY, Orange County,

RNAV RWY 3, Orig

Montgomery, NY, Orange County,

RNAV RWY 8, Orig

Montgomery, NY, Orange County,

RNAV RWY 21, Orig

Montgomery, NY, Orange County,

RNAV RWY 26, Orig

Concord, NC, Concord Regional, ILS

RWY 20, Amdt 1

Sand Springs, OK, William R. Pogue

Muni, VOR OR GPS–A, Amdt 2

Pottsville, PA, Schuylkill County/Joe

Zerbey, RNAV RWY 11, Orig

Pottsville, PA, Schuylkill County/Joe

Zerbey, RNAV RWY 29, Orig

Pottsville, PA, Schuylkill County/Joe

Zerbey, VOR/DME RNAV RWY 29,

Amdt 3, CANCELLED

Memphis, TN, Memphis Intl, RADAR–

1, Amdt 39

Smithville, TN, Smithville Muni, RNAV

RWY 24, Orig

Somerville, TN, Fayette County, NDB

RWY 19, Amdt 1

Rockport, TX, Aransas CO, NDB RWY

14, Amdt 1

Sherman/Denison, TX, Grayson County,

VOR/DME RNAV RWY 35R, Orig-B

Longview, TX, Gregg County, NDB RWY

13, Amdt 14B

Tyler, TX, Tyler Pounds Field, VOR/

DME OR GPS RWY 4, Amdt 3C

Tyler, TX, Tyler Pounds Field, VOR/

DME OR GPS RWY 22, Amdt 3C

Tyler, TX, Tyler Pounds Field, VOR

RWY 31, Amdt 1C

Tyler, TX, Tyler Pounds Field, NDB OR

GPS RWY 13, Amdt 17D

[FR Doc. 00–26950 Filed 10–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA 99–5063; Notice 2]

RIN 2127—AH 83

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Interior Trunk Release

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document establishes

new Federal motor vehicle safety

standard (FMVSS) No. 401; Internal

trunk release, that requires all new

passenger cars with trunks be equipped

with a release latch inside the trunk

compartment beginning September 1,

2001. Instead of a release latch, this

document also permits the installation

of an alternative system such as a

passive trunk release system which

would detect the presence of a human

in the trunk and would automatically

unlatch the trunk lid. During the

summer of 1998, eleven children died

when they inadvertently trapped

themselves in the trunk of a car. This

new standard will provide children and

others who find themselves trapped

inside a passenger car trunk a chance to

get out of the trunk alive.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date

of the final rule is September 1, 2001.

Early compliance date. You have the

option of early compliance with this

final rule beginning October 20, 2000.

Petition for reconsideration deadline.

If you wish to petition for

reconsideration of this final rule, you

must submit it so that we receive your

petition not later than December 4,

2000.

ADDRESSES: In your petition for

reconsideration, you should refer to the

docket number and notice number at the

beginning of this final rule, and submit

the petition for reconsideration to:

Administrator, NHTSA, 400 Seventh

Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kenneth O. Hardie, Office of Crash

Avoidance Standards, NHTSA, 400

Seventh Street, S.W., Washington DC

20590. Mr. Hardie’s telephone number

is (202) 366–6987 and his facsimile

number is (202) 493–2739.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Previous Agency Looks at Trunk

Entrapment

The issue of motor vehicle trunk

entrapment was initially raised in May

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 204 / Friday, October 20, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 63015

of 1984 when NHTSA was petitioned by

Mr. William Proehl to require that every

new car be equipped with a trunk

release lever that can be easily operated

from inside a vehicle’s trunk. The

petitioner listed various possible

circumstances of accidental and

intentional entrapment in the trunk of a

vehicle. The petitioner stated that

persons such as alarm and stereo

installers, mechanics, playful children,

pranksters, and crime victims may be

trapped in the trunk. The petitioner also

believed that an elderly person might

fall into the trunk and thereby become

entrapped. Mr. Proehl asked NHTSA to

require an inside trunk release in all

new cars to facilitate the release of these

victims.

After reviewing the petition and the

available relevant information, NHTSA

published a notice of denial of petition

for rulemaking which concluded that

the likelihood of an internal trunk lever

ever being used was remote (49 FR

47277; December 3, 1984). NHTSA

stated in 1984 that it was not aware of

any data indicating that there is much

likelihood of occurrence of

unintentional entrapment in a vehicle’s

trunk. NHTSA’s rationale for its

conclusion stated that trunk lids are

spring-loaded in the open position and,

therefore, not likely to close by

themselves with someone inside.

Because the lids are spring loaded, it is

difficult to close the trunk from any

position except standing behind the

vehicle and pushing down on the outer

surface of the trunk lid. From that

position, a person has a full view of the

trunk interior. The agency stated that it

believed it would be extremely unlikely

that a person would accidentally close

the lid with someone inside. Concerning

an elderly person falling into the trunk,

the petitioner suggested that entrapment

could occur if snow on the trunk closed

the lid when the person fell. It was

unclear to NHTSA how the trunk would

entrap the person in this circumstance,

since it is unlikely that the individual

would fall in such a way that more than

his or her upper torso is inside the

trunk. Again, in this situation, NHTSA

stated its belief that an internal trunk

release lever would not likely need to be

used.

The 1984 notice stated that NHTSA

was aware that victims of crime or

pranks are, on occasion, purposely

locked in the trunk of a vehicle.

However, the petitioner did not provide

any data supporting the benefits of an

internal release mechanism in these

circumstances. The agency did not and

still does not know, for example, how

often a victim of a crime or prank who

is purposely locked in a vehicle’s trunk

might also be secured so that an internal

release mechanism could not be

operated.

Between May 1984 and July 1998,

NHTSA received approximately two

dozen letters expressing concern about

trunk entrapments. In no case was data

provided to the agency about the size of

this safety problem.

Events of the Summer of 1998

In June 1998, Congress directed

NHTSA to conduct a study of the

benefits to the public of a regulation

requiring the installation in motor

vehicles of an interior device to release

the trunk lid. NHTSA was required to

submit a report on the results of the

study to Congress by December 1999.

Additionally, during a three-week

period between July and August of

1998, eleven children died in three

separate incidents when they locked

themselves in the trunk of an

automobile.

The Work of the Expert Panel on Trunk

Entrapment

In September 1998, NHTSA began to

gather all available information on the

issue of trunk entrapments. In general,

it appears that the victims of trunk

entrapment include two distinct

categories: people who are intentionally

locked in a motor vehicle trunk by

criminals and people, mostly children,

who inadvertently lock themselves in

the trunk. The problem’s solution

requires some understanding of criminal

and child behavior, the human factors

problem of designing a mechanism that

children and others will be able to

operate quickly when frightened and in

the dark, and other issues including

location and possible power

requirements. Considering the broad

array of issues, NHTSA decided that

instead of having the government

develop a solution on its own, a more

effective way of addressing and

understanding the issue would be to

bring business, government and civic

leaders, medical and engineering

researchers and a broad coalition of

concerned organizations together to

work to prevent trunk entrapments. To

accomplish this, NHTSA decided to

convene an independent panel of

experts.

In November 1998, NHTSA asked Ms.

Heather Paul of the National Safe Kids

Campaign to chair an Expert Panel for

the purpose of developing

recommendations and strategies by mid1999 for addressing the issue of deaths

and injuries resulting from motor

vehicle trunk entrapment. The Expert

Panel on Trunk Entrapment consisted of

representatives from various industries,

including vehicle manufacturers, law

enforcement groups, experts in child

psychology and behavior, child safety

advocates, the medical community,

other Federal government agencies, and

other interested parties. NHTSA

officials were not members of the panel,

but attended all meetings as observers.

NHTSA’s role was to be available to

provide information and advice to the

Panel members when asked, on issues

such as outreach, marketing, education,

training, existing federal standards,

research and statistical information.

This Expert Panel met three times in

Washington, DC, in January, March, and

May 1999. At the first meeting, at the

request of the Panel’s chairperson,

NHTSA presented an overview of the

available data on the size of the safety

problem. NHTSA’s report is available in

the public docket in both its original

and revised form (Docket No. NHTSA

1999–5063–2 and 5063–3, respectively).

The report concluded that existing

Federal databases had very little

information on the problem of trunk

entrapment, and described our search of

data collected by this agency, as well as

the Consumer Product Safety

Commission, the National Center for

Health Statistics, and the Federal

Bureau of Investigation. The available

data indicated there have been 21

deaths in 11 incidents of inadvertent

trunk entrapment from 1987 to 1999.

Also at the first meeting, Janette

Fennell of Trunk Releases Urgently

Needed Coalition (TRUNC), a non-profit

group dedicated to improving trunk

safety, made a presentation suggesting

that trunk entrapments happen with

greater regularity than is generally

believed. Ms. Fennell said that, as of

January 1999, she had gathered

anecdotal evidence and media reports of

more than 900 cases of trunk

entrapment. Ms. Fennell’s presentation

was followed by a presentation by

Lenore Terr, a child psychologist. Ms.

Terr explained that evidence suggests

that small children basically ‘‘shut

down’’ and passively wait for rescue in

situations like trunk entrapment. Hence,

she recommended that any trunk release

must be very simple or it will not help

small children.

The next presentation at the first

meeting was by Mr. Robert Lange of

General Motors Corporation (GM). Mr.

Lange presented GM’s research and

trunk safety retrofit solution. GM’s

interior release mechanism is a handle

that is lighted for 30 minutes after the

trunk is closed. GM’s research found

that most 3- to 6-year old children could

successfully use this handle. The

success rate increased dramatically as

children got older. However, Mr. Lange

63016 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 204 / Friday, October 20, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

emphasized that neither GM’s handle

nor any other approach will allow all 3-

to 6-year old children to get out of a

trunk alive. That is why, according to

Mr. Lange, GM’s retrofit switch requires

a deliberate movement of a switch to

latch the trunk closed. GM believes this

will prevent a significant portion of

inadvertent trunk entrapments.

The final presentation at the first

meeting was by Wayne Lord, of the

FBI’s National Center for the Analysis of

Violent Crime. Mr. Lord said we learn

about criminals by studying their

reactions to certain situations or stimuli.

These reactions allow one to predict

likely future behavior when confronted

with those situations or stimuli. There

are currently no studies of which Mr.

Lord is aware that involve the behavior

of criminals who knew there was a

trunk release inside the trunk. Hence,

there is no scientific basis for

predictions about what criminals will

do if there are inside trunk releases

(either harm or immobilize victims or

ignore or forget about the trunk release).

Any prediction as to which of these two

courses criminals will take is just a

guess, and the FBI will not do that.

At the second meeting of the Expert

Panel on March 9, 1999, the first

presentation was by Dr. Jonathan Arden,

a forensic pathologist and the Medical

Examiner for the District of Columbia.

Dr. Arden provided a detailed medical

description of asphyxiation and

hyperthermia, the diagnoses on the

death certificates of the children who

died in the trunks of cars. Dr. Arden

suggested the preferred approach would

be to get the children out of the trunk

as quickly as possible. The other

presentation at the second meeting was

by Lois Fingerhut of the National Center

for Health Statistics (NCHS), who gave

information about the pilot program

NHTSA and NCHS have undertaken to

look at non-crash deaths in vehicles.

Ms. Fingerhut gave out a copy of a

standard death certificate and explained

how and where the information on the

cause of death is coded.

The Expert Panel spent a significant

part of the second meeting discussing

possible paths for getting inside trunk

releases into vehicles. The options

considered were:

1. Rely on voluntary actions by

manufacturers to install inside trunk

releases. The potential benefits

identified with this path were that it

allows maximum freedom to develop

and install a variety of different

solutions without imposing any

unintended regulatory obstacles. The

potential negative implications of this

path were that not all manufacturers

would necessarily install inside trunk

releases on all their vehicles.

2. NHTSA Establishes a Requirement

for Vehicles to be Equipped with Inside

Trunk Releases without any

Performance Requirements. The

potential benefit of this path is that it

allows manufacturers maximum

freedom to experiment with different

designs of inside trunk releases, while

assuring that all vehicles with trunks

will have an inside trunk release. The

potential negative implications of this

path were that, absent performance

requirements, the goals of the

requirement might not be fulfilled.

Manufacturers might choose ineffective

inside trunk releases that would fully

comply with such a standard.

3. NHTSA Establishes a Detailed

Performance Requirement for Inside

Trunk Releases. The potential benefit of

this path is that it establishes clear

guidance as to what performance is

expected from inside trunk releases. The

potential negative of this path is the

amount of time it would take to conduct

research to determine what performance

requirements should be established. In

addition, detailed performance

requirements can pose obstacles to new

technologies not available at the time

the performance requirements are

established.

The Expert Panel did not decide on

any one of these three options at its

second meeting, but there was

significant discussion of each of these

courses of action. The Panel decided to

wait to make any recommendation as to

the approach it would recommend.

At the third meeting of the Expert

Panel on May 3, 1999, Mr. Michael

Stando of Ford Motor Company gave a

presentation about the inside trunk

release that will be original equipment

on all of its model year 2000 cars. This

decision by Ford affects 1.8 million cars

and three latch suppliers. Mr. Stando

said that Ford generated 22 different

potential approaches. Ford consulted a

psychologist specializing in child

behavior. The psychologist said that the

most natural response for children 18

months to 4 years old to an object that

interests them is to grasp the object and

pull it toward themselves, to put it in

their mouth if they are younger and to

visually examine it more closely if they

are older. Mr. Stando stated that Ford

human factors specialists then tested

their symbol and symbol/handle

recognition on 27 children between the

ages of three and five. Eighteen of the 27

children achieved at least partial

symbol/handle recognition. Ford’s

inside trunk release is cable-operated

with a T-shaped handle. The handle is

sized for a child’s hand and made of

polypropylene, like many food

containers. Mr. Stando said that the

handle has a phosphorescent ‘‘glow-inthe-dark’’ additive, so it needs no

electrical power. The handle is quickcharging—it needs only 10 seconds of

garage light to glow visibly inside the

closed trunk. The glow was said to be

very long-lasting (up to 8 hours when

fully charged). The handle operates with

a pull motion. It is low effort and

requires only one inch of travel, factors

designed to make the trunk release

system child-friendly, according to Mr.

Stando. In addition, this mechanism can

be retrofitted on Ford cars from one to

five model years back. Mr. Stando

announced that Ford will make this

release available as a retrofit option for

these older vehicles.

As a result of the information and

discussions at these three meetings, the

Expert Panel announced a series of

recommendations on June 8, 1999. One

of these recommendations was that

‘‘[a]ll automobile manufacturers should

design and install trunk safety features,

including internal trunk release

mechanisms, into all new vehicles by

January 1, 2001.’’ Another

recommendation was that NHTSA

‘‘should issue a standard requiring

vehicles to be equipped with internal

trunk release mechanisms.’’ The

standard should hold the automobile

industry accountable for taking action,

yet allow manufacturers the freedom to

determine optimal design solutions.

Manufacturers are urged to pursue

voluntary action rather than waiting for

the effective date of this final rule.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM)

On December 17, 1999, NHTSA

published an NPRM in the Federal

Register proposing a new FMVSS to

require that all new vehicles with trunks

come equipped with a release latch

inside the trunk compartment beginning

January 1, 2001 (See 64 FR 70672). The

comment period for the notice ended on

February 15, 2000. Of the 266 comments

on the NPRM (some comments were

improperly filed in the Trunk

Entrapment Docket, NHTSA Docket No.

1999–5063), only two commenters

stated that they were opposed to the

proposed new standard. One individual

(a member of the general public) stated,

‘‘I do not believe that trunk releases of

this nature should be mandatory. An

alternative to this may be to make it

mandatory that dealerships offer this as

an option.’’ The other comment in

opposition to the new standard was

from Volkswagen AG, Audi AG and

Volkswagen of America, Inc.,

(Volkswagen). Volkswagen in referring

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 204 / Friday, October 20, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 63017

to the 1984 NHTSA denial of a petition

to issue a Standard for inside trunk

releases stated, ‘‘Volkswagen believes

that the NHTSA reasons for denying

that petition are still applicable.’’

A significant number of commenters

simply stated their support for the

proposed rule. In general, the

commenters can be categorized into four

different groups, general public; vehicle

manufacturers, suppliers, and

associated trade associations; safety

advocate institutions; and other groups

and entities, i.e., members of state

governments, members of the medical

community, etc. A summary of the

issues raised and concerns expressed is

presented below, along with NHTSA

responses:

Summary of Comments and Issues

Raised

The following is a summary of issues

raised and concerns expressed regarding

the NPRM. These concerns and issues

are as summarized below:

Comment/Concerns/Issues

• Application—Some commenters

stated that the NPRM is ambiguous on

the scope of the proposed Standard, i.e.,

the preamble under the heading of

Scope of Proposal (page 70675) states

regarding the definition of trunk lid,

‘‘The effect of this definition is that the

requirement for an internal release

would not apply to vehicles that do not

typically have trunk lids, like hatchback

cars, station wagons, pickup trucks,

sport utility vehicles, and vans.’’

However, the proposed text of

Paragraph S2, Application states, ‘‘This

standard applies to passenger cars,

multipurpose passenger vehicles, buses,

and trucks that have a trunk lid.’’ Thus,

the Application section includes

vehicles the preamble would have

excluded. Limiting the scope of the

proposal to passenger cars would be

consistent with field data, the

recommendations of the expert panel

and the preamble.

NHTSA Response—The inclusion of

multipurpose passenger vehicles, buses

and trucks in the Application section of

the proposed standard led some

commenters to conclude that NHTSA

was proposing to apply the internal

latch release requirements to trunks and

storage compartments of a broad range

of vehicles other than passenger cars.

NHTSA has clarified the Standard by

adding a definition of ‘‘trunk

compartment’’ and changing the

Application section so that the standard

will only apply to new passenger cars

that have ‘‘trunk compartments.’’ The

apparent inclusion of other motor

vehicle types in the Application section

of this standard resulted to some degree

from NHTSA’s adoption in the NPRM of

the Standard No. 206; ‘‘Door locks and

door retention components’’ definition

of ‘‘trunk lid.’’ Standard No. 206 applies

to passenger cars, multipurpose

passenger vehicles and trucks. Door

locks and retention components on

buses are not covered by FMVSS No.

206.

NHTSA’s decision to limit the

application of this new standard to

passenger cars is based on the following

information. The available data and

anecdotal evidence of entrapment are

associated with passenger cars only.

There is essentially no mention of any

entrapment having occurred in buses or

trucks or in multipurpose passenger

vehicles. Additionally, there does not

appear to be evidence of accidental

entrapment involving medium or heavyduty vehicles. Medium and heavy-duty

vehicles are not readily accessible to

small unattended children to the same

extent as are passenger cars.

With respect to buses, the School Bus

Manufacturers Technical Council

commented that,

The storage doors on school buses often are

provided with latches and locking devices,

and require a key to unlock and open. Unlike

passenger cars, there is no lever or switch in

the occupant compartment that unlocks and

opens the storage compartment. If the

compartment is locked, in order for

entrapment to occur, the child would have to

obtain a key from the bus driver or facility

where the bus was stored or parked. It seems

unlikely that a bus driver or other adult

would give a bus key to a child.

In those instances where the storage

compartment on a school bus does not

require a key to unlock, the physical size and

weight of the storage compartment door raise

serious questions as to whether a child could

open the door fully.’’ ‘‘If a child were able

to fully open a storage compartment door on

a school bus and climb into the storage

compartment, it does not appear the child

could then close the door behind himself or

herself.

The same appears to be true for

commercial passenger buses. For buses,

and most trucks and multipurpose

passenger vehicles, ‘‘trunks’’ consist of

storage compartments contained in the

exterior sides of the vehicles, usually

below the floor of the passenger

compartment. These storage

compartments are used for storage of

battery, luggage and/or cargo, the spare

tire and tools, etc. The compartment

doors (trunk lids) on these vehicles are

typically contained in a vertical plane

when closed and open outward and

upward to allow items to be placed

horizontally into the compartment

(trunk). These doors are large,

commonly 22 by 54 inches, and heavy,

approximately 40 pounds.

Since the proposed rule offers no

apparent benefits in its applicability to

these other vehicle types, i.e.,

multipurpose passenger vehicles, buses,

and trucks, NHTSA is not including

them in the scope and application of

this Standard.

If in the future, NHTSA concludes

that trunk entrapment is a problem with

multipurpose passenger vehicles, buses,

and trucks, the agency will at that time

evaluate the hazard and determine what

solution will best prevent entrapment.

Concerning the applicability of this

Standard to hatchbacks, if a movable

body panel, that provides access to a

space wholly partitioned from the

occupant compartment, encloses that

space upon closing a permanently

attached lid such as a hatchback lid,

then the closing lid is considered a

trunk lid for the purposes of this rule.

• Definition of ‘‘Trunk lid’’—In using

the FMVSS No. 206 definition of ‘‘trunk

lid’’ as proposed in the NPRM, a pickup bed with a tonneau cover, for

example, could be interpreted to be a

trunk lid. The back of the pick-up cab

is a permanently attached partition and

a pick-up bed has at least one ‘‘movable

body panel that provides access from

outside the vehicle,’’ for example, the

tailgate, a tonneau (soft or rigid) or the

hinged panel of a pick-up bed cap.

Under the proposed text of the

Standard, pick-up trucks could be

required to install internal trunk

releases. Extended further, a covered

toolbox in a pick-up bed or a covered

storage compartment accessible from the

exterior could likewise require an

interior trunk release.

Many trucks produced for commercial

or vocational use have storage

compartments (a movable body panel

that provides access from outside the

vehicle to a space wholly partitioned

from the occupant compartment by a

permanently attached partition or a

fixed or fold-down seat back) that could

be included under the ‘‘trunk lid’’

definition. This would include locking

storage cabinets on the side of a truck

body or roll up door of a beverage

delivery truck. The National Truck

Equipment Association (NTEA),

recommended that the definition of

trunk lid be clarified to exclude such

storage compartments and/or that the

scope of the proposal be restricted to

vehicles with gross vehicle weight

rating of 6,000 pounds or less. Many

vehicle manufacturers, including

General Motors, Ford Motor Company,

Daimler Chrysler, Blue Bird Body

Company, and the Truck Manufacturers

Association recommended that NHTSA

63018 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 204 / Friday, October 20, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

limit the application of this Standard to

passenger cars.

NHTSA’s Response—As stated in the

NHTSA response to the comments

regarding Application, the applicability

of this Standard has been amended and

is limited to passenger cars. This should

address the problem identified for

storage space on pick-up trucks,

multipurpose passenger vehicles, buses,

and trucks in general.

• Trunk Size—The definition of a

‘‘trunk lid’’ may be read to apply to

numerous situations in which it was not

intended. For example, it may apply to

the panel opening to the fuel filler tube.

That door is a movable panel that

provides access from outside the vehicle

to a space that is wholly partitioned

from the passenger compartment. Yet no

person could be trapped inside that

space. As proposed, the definition

includes storage compartments

regardless of their size. A number of

manufacturers recommended that

NHTSA specify or add a minimum

trunk volume. Porsche, DaimlerChrysler, Toyota Motor Corporation, the

Association of International Automobile

Manufacturers, and some other

automobile manufacturers

recommended a space of 35′′ x 15′′ x 12′′

be defined as the minimum area beneath

a trunk lid that would require an

internal trunk release mechanism. They

indicated that these dimensions are

based upon the shoulder width and the

torso length of the Hybrid III ThreeYear-Old Child Crash Test Dummy used

by NHTSA during vehicle crash testing.

NHTSA’s Response—NHTSA agrees

that an internal release mechanism

should not be required to open

compartments that are so small that

children or adults cannot get into them.

NHTSA also agrees with the suggestion

to determine the appropriate size based

on the dimensions of a child three years

of age. In order to make such a

determination objective, NHTSA has

decided to use the NHTSA three-yearold Hybrid III child crash test dummy,

as a surrogate for the minimum size of

a child that might find itself within the

trunk space. This dummy represents an

objective and practicable surrogate with

clearly defined parameters for the

average-size, or 50th percentile, 3-yearold male child. If the compartment

closed by the trunk lid is large enough

to close and latch the trunk lid when a

Part 572—Anthropomorphic Test

Devices, Subpart C—3-Year Old Child is

placed inside the trunk compartment,

then that vehicle must be equipped with

a release mechanism inside the trunk

compartment that unlatches the trunk

lid. Such an evaluation must be

conducted with all standard equipment

in the trunk (i.e., spare tire, wheel jack,

tools, etc.).

NHTSA rejects the recommendation

of using a rectangular box dimensioned

to the specifications proposed by some

of the automobile manufacturers, i.e.,

35′′ long x 15′′ height x 12′′ wide or 89

cm x 38 cm x 30 cm, because a rigid

rectangular box may not fit in some

trunks due to the trunk opening or the

depth behind the opening, while the

flexible Hybrid III Crash Test Dummy

and real children could easily fit into

the space. Thus, NHTSA has decided

that the Part 572—Anthropomorphic

Test Devices, Subpart C—3-Year-Old

Child, mentioned by commenters, is the

appropriate test device. Also, note that

NHTSA conducted an experiment using

the completely assembled NHTSA

three-year-old Hybrid III child crash test

dummy. During the experiment NHTSA

constructed a rectangular box to the

specifications proposed by some of the

commenters, i.e., 35′′ long x 15′′ high x

12′′ wide or 89 cm x 38 cm x 30 cm. We

were able to easily place the three yearold male hybrid dummy within the

confines of the box. To fit the dummy

within the rectangular box, it was only

necessary to slightly bend its knees.

Obviously the test dummy need not be

equipped with the accelerometers

required in Part 572.21, since no crash

test will be conducted.

• Front-Opening-Trunks/Hoods—

Porsche and the Association of

International Automobile Manufacturers

(AIAM) argued that the new standard

should not apply to front luggage

compartments which are subject to the

secondary latch requirement of FMVSS

No. 113. FMVSS No. 113 requires each

hood to have a hood latch system. S4.2

of FMVSS No. 113 requires vehicles

with front opening hoods (such as those

found on the Porsche 911 and Boxster)

to be provided with a second latch

position on the hood latch system or

with a second hood latch system. The

purpose of the FMVSS No. 113

requirement is to prevent the hood from

flying open while the vehicle is in

operation and obstructing the driver’s

forward view through the windshield.

Porsche states in its comments on the

NPRM, ‘‘While it is conceivable that a

very small child could become

entrapped in a front luggage

compartment, we believe that the risk of

injuring the driver, passengers and other

motorist in the event the front hood is

opened during vehicle operation far

exceeds the potential benefits to be

derived from providing the trunk

release.’’ Porsche and AIAM further

stated that since the application of

FMVSS No. 401 to compartments with

front-opening hoods directly conflicts

with the objectives of FMVSS No. 113,

they recommend NHTSA modify S2 of

Standard No. 401 to specifically exclude

compartments with front opening

hoods.

NHTSA’s Response—For purposes of

this Standard, a trunk compartment

means a space that is wholly separated

from the occupant compartment of a

passenger car by a permanently attached

partition or by a fixed or fold-down seat

back and/or partition, and that space

can be accessed from outside the motor

vehicle by a trunk lid. This space is not

the compartment that holds the

vehicle’s engine or battery

compartment. A trunk lid means a

movable body panel that provides

access from outside a motor vehicle to

a trunk compartment. The fact that the

trunk compartment is located at the

front of the vehicle does not reduce the

need for an entrapped individual,

especially a small child, to be able to

escape the trunk when entrapped.

NHTSA is aware that unlocking and

opening a front opening trunk/hood

while the vehicle is in motion results in

a risk of injuring the driver, passenger

and other motorist due to obstruction of

the driver’s forward view. However, we

conclude that the interest in getting the

victim out of the trunk is paramount.

Therefore, the Standard No. 113

requirement for the secondary latch

must be subservient to the requirement

for an interior trunk release in those

situations, i.e., when the trunk release

mechanism is actuated, the release

mechanism must completely release the

trunk lid from all latching positions of

the trunk lid latch.

• Hinged Back Doors—Ford Motor

Company recommended that the

Standard specifically exclude hinged

back doors, such as those found on the

rear of vans, SUVs, hatchbacks, and

station wagons, from the requirement

for an internal trunk release mechanism.

Ford noted that hinged back doors, as

defined in FMVSS No. 206, require

latches with both primary and

secondary latch positions. Ford further

stated that an internal trunk release

mechanism on hinged back doors would

directly conflict with the requirements

of S4.4.2 of Standard No. 206 which

states, ‘‘When the locking mechanism is

engaged, both the inside and outside

door handles or other latch release

controls shall be inoperative.’’ Ford

argues that providing an internal trunk

release mechanism on a hinged back

door also introduces the possibility of

unintended actuation by a child while

the vehicle is in motion. Accordingly,

this may actually create a greater risk to

child safety.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 204 / Friday, October 20, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 63019

NHTSA’s Response—Contrary to

Ford’s assertions, S3 of Standard No.

206 expressly provides that the term

‘‘back door’’ does not include a ‘‘trunk

lid.’’ Thus, the requirements in S4.4.2 of

Standard No. 206 only apply if the

movable panel is not a trunk lid, and the

requirements in this standard only

apply if the movable panel is a trunk

lid. Thus, there is no conflict along the

lines Ford suggested.

• Leadtime—Some vehicle

manufacturers stated that an

engineering solution for an inside-thetrunk release mechanism is easier to

implement for some model lines than

for other model lines. Issues involving

design, testing (component, system,

complete vehicle), and quality

assurance (including tolerance ‘‘stackup’’), have an effect upon their ability to

meet the proposed effective date for all

affected model lines. They stated that

production tooling needs to be

designed, built, and tested in order to

ensure that these systems are

manufactured in accordance with strict

quality control. As a solution is needed

for already-existing (in-production) and

multiple model lines, each trunk release

system must be designed differently in

order to interface with its corresponding

trunk latch system. Thus, some

manufacturers argued that certain model

lines will need more time than a January

1, 2001 effective date in order to

accomplish the above engineering

activities. Volvo Cars of North America,

Inc., and Ford Motor Company

requested that a phase-in schedule be

promulgated by NHTSA and that all

affected vehicles be required to comply

18 months following enactment of the

Final Rule, i.e., 60% of affected vehicles

be required to comply starting 12

months following enactment of the

Final Rule, and 100% 6 months

thereafter. American Honda Motor Co.,

Inc.; BMW of North America, Inc.; and

Volkswagen of North America, Inc., all

recommended a phase-in period with a

start date no earlier than September 1,

2001, assuming a Final Rule publication

date in the July/September 2000 timeframe. Honda recommended a

completion date of September 1, 2002.

Porsche Cars North America, Inc., stated

that it will not be until the 2003 model

year that it will be able to begin

introducing internal trunk release

systems into production vehicles. The

Association of International Automobile

Manufacturers (AIAM) recommended an

extension to the effective date of the

Standard with an implementation

schedule of 40%, 70% and 100% phasein, respectively, of model years 2003,

2004, and 2005.

These manufacturers also stated that,

if the final rule applies to non-passenger

cars and depending on the definition of

‘‘trunk lid,’’ additional leadtime would

be required, because it is not possible to

estimate the time necessary to redesign

latch systems and vehicles until they

know which additional vehicles will be

affected.

NHTSA’s Response—As noted above,

the Standard will apply to passenger

cars only. NHTSA understands that the

proposed effective date for this Standard

of January 1, 2001 might have

represented a challenge to some

manufacturers because of the need to

develop design solutions and modify

production systems as required for the

system installation in vehicles during

assembly. At the same time, the agency

does not believe that designing and

installing an internal trunk release

mechanism presents a major

engineering and installation challenge

to vehicle manufacturers. One reason for

this belief is that the requirements in the

final rule follow closely the June 1998

recommendations of the Expert Panel.

Another is that some manufacturers

began installing an emergency trunk

release as standard equipment on a

range of vehicles at the beginning of this

calendar year.

NHTSA has decided on an effective

date for this Standard on September 1,

2001. This will provide a leadtime of

approximately one year from the date of

issuance of this final rule. This effective

date will require manufacturers to finish

any remaining design and production

decision quickly, but allow them

sufficient time to implement the

changes at the start of a new model year.

• Technology Limiting—In S.4 of the

proposed Standard, NHTSA is requiring

that manufacturers provide some form

of illumination so that trapped

occupants can locate the release

mechanism. According to commenters,

this requirement suggest that the agency

incorrectly assumed that all

manufacturers will rely solely on

handles or other mechanical type

devices which require actuation by the

trapped occupant. As there are other

more advanced concepts imaginable

(e.g., system using heat and motion

sensors to unlatch the trunk lid),

NHTSA should modify S.4 to specify

that the illumination requirement

applies only to mechanical type handle

systems which require actuation by the

trapped occupant.

NHTSA’s Response—Because some

manufacturers may decide to use more

advanced technology than a system that

requires actuation by the trapped

occupant, i.e., a passive device which

would detect the presence of a human

in the trunk and would automatically

unlatch the trunk lid, NHTSA concurs

with the recommendation to modify the

text of S4 such that the illumination

requirement applied to ‘‘manuallyactivated’’ systems. The text of S4,

Requirements, has been modified such

that the illumination requirement is

applicable to cars equipped with a

release system which requires actuation

by the trapped occupant.

Additionally, to assure that automatic

systems exist in a manner consistent

with the intent of this rulemaking, a

requirement has been added regarding

the performance of these systems. These

systems must open the trunk lid within

the first five minutes of an entrapment

of a human being. We believe that this

requirement will assure that the time of

entrapment is sufficiently short that

interior trunk temperature and heat will

not cause a health crisis to entrapped

persons. Thus, the text of S4,

Requirements, has been modified to

have a subsection for manual releases

and a subsection for automatic releases.

• Other Comments—The

organizations of Trunk Release Urgently

Needed Coalition (TRUNC), the Center

for Auto Safety (CAS), and some other

responders to the NPRM recommended

that NHTSA mandate retrofit kits for inuse vehicles. TRUNC urged NHTSA to

mandate that retrofit kits be made

available for all vehicles with trunks

that have been manufactured for the

past 10 years.

One manufacturer asked if the agency

would permit a special ‘‘valet’’ key

feature that could mechanically block

out the internal trunk latch release

system. This ‘‘special valet key’’ allows

the owner to mechanically override the

electronic locking system of the vehicles

and thus prevent anyone from accessing

the trunk or its contents, even with the

remote transmitter, should the owner be

required to turn his vehicle over to a

valet or parking attendant. As noted

earlier, this feature mechanically blocks

out the internal trunk latch.

NHTSA’s Response—While NHTSA

has the authority to issue requirements

regulating the performance of

aftermarket equipment for use or

installation in new or used vehicles, the

agency cannot mandate manufacturing

of particular types of equipment. Thus,

while the agency could regulate the

performance of retrofit interior trunk

releases, it could not mandate that they

be manufactured or made available to

the public. With regards to the ‘‘special

valet key feature’’ that could override

the lock release system inside of the

trunk of the vehicle, NHTSA will not

permit such a feature. The convenience

of assured trunk security is not

63020 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 204 / Friday, October 20, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

compelling enough to justify overriding

this safety feature. The special valet key

feature could also be used by criminals

to keep their victim locked in the trunk.

Organization Within Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standards

NHTSA has typically organized its

safety standards so that the 100 series of

standards represents the crash

avoidance standards (those designed to

reduce the likelihood of being in a

crash), the 200 series of standards

represents the crashworthiness

standards (those designed to protect the

occupant in the event of a crash), and

the 300 series of standards represents

the post-crash fire standards (those

designed to minimize the likelihood of

a fire after a crash). A standard for an

internal trunk release doesn’t fit into

any of these categories because there is

no crash associated with the problem of

becoming trapped inside a locked trunk.

Therefore, we have decided to establish

a new series of standards, the 400 series,

that will be dedicated to motor vehicle

injury prevention in non-crash events.

This standard for internal trunk releases

will therefore be Standard No. 401.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

a. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory

Planning and Review) and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This rulemaking document was not

reviewed under Executive Order 12866.

It is not significant within the meaning

of the DOT Regulatory Policies and

Procedures. Information indicates that

an approach to internal trunk releases

such as Ford’s can be implemented for

about $2.00 per vehicle. Thus, we

anticipate total costs of about $14

million. This impact is so minimal as to

not warrant the preparation of a full

regulatory evaluation.

b. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility

Act, whenever an agency is required to

publish a notice of rulemaking for any

proposed or final rule, it must prepare

and make available for public comment

a regulatory flexibility analysis that

describes the effect of the rule on small

entities (i.e., small business, small

organizations and small governmental

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory

flexibility analysis is required if the

head of an agency certifies the rule will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. As noted above, we estimate

that the cost per passenger car this final

rule will be about $2.00. The total cost

for all passenger cars will be about $14

million (7 million passenger cars x

$2.00). Based on this analysis, I certify

that this final rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

c. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

This rulemaking action has been

analyzed in accordance with the

principles and criteria contained in

Executive Order 13132. This rule will

not have a substantial direct effect on

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132. Accordingly,

NHTSA has determined that this rule

will not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant consultation

with State and local officials or the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Accordingly, a Federalism Assessment

has not been prepared.

d. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) requires

agencies to prepare a written assessment

of the costs, benefits and other effects of

proposed or final rules that include a

Federal mandate likely to result in the

expenditure by State, local or tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or by the

private sector, of more than $100

million annually. This rule would not

have any such impacts on those parties.

As noted above, the agency expects the

costs associated with this rule to be

about $2.00 per car, or about $14

million in the aggregate.

e. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

This rule is consistent with the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–

113). Under the Act, ‘‘all Federal

agencies and departments shall use

technical standards that are developed

or adopted by voluntary consensus

standards bodies, using such technical

standards as a means to carry out policy

objectives or activities determined by

the agencies and departments.’’ There

are no such standards available at this

time. However, one of the Expert Panel’s

recommendations was that the Society

of Automotive Engineers (SAE) should

begin work to develop a recommended

practice for the design and performance

of trunk safety features, including

internal trunk release mechanisms.

NHTSA will consider any such SAE

recommended practice when it becomes

available.

f. National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking

action for the purposes of the National

Environmental Policy Act. The agency

has determined that adoption of this

rulemaking action as a final rule will

not have any significant impact on the

quality of the human environment.

g. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice

Reform)

This rule does not have any

retroactive effect. Under section 49

U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor

vehicle safety standard is in effect, a

state may not adopt or maintain a safety

standard applicable to the same aspect

of performance which is not identical to

the Federal standard, except to the

extent that the state requirement

imposes a higher level of performance

and applies only to vehicles procured

for the State’s use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets

forth a procedure for judicial review of

final rules establishing, amending or

revoking Federal motor vehicle safety

standards. That section does not require

submission of a petition for

reconsideration or other administrative

proceedings before parties may file suit

in court.

h. Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not have any

requirements that are considered to be

information collection requirements as

defined by the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) in 5 CFR Part 1320.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Incorporation by reference,

Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Tires.

In consideration of the foregoing,

NHTSA amends 49 CFR Chapter V as

set forth below.

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

1. The authority citation for Part 571

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,

30166 and 30177; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50.

2. A new section 571.401 is added to

Part 571, to read as follows:

§ 571.401 Standard No. 401; Internal trunk

release.

S1. Purpose and scope. This standard

establishes the requirement for

providing a trunk release mechanism

that makes it possible for a person

trapped inside the trunk compartment

of a passenger car to escape from the

compartment.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 204 / Friday, October 20, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 63021

S2. Application. This standard

applies to passenger cars that have a

trunk compartment.

S3. Definitions.

Trunk compartment means a space

that:

(a) Is intended to be used for carrying

luggage,

(b) Is wholly separated from the

occupant compartment of a passenger

car by a permanently attached partition

or by a fixed or fold-down seat back

and/or partition,

(c) Has a trunk lid, and

(d) Is large enough so that the threeyear-old child dummy described in

Subpart C of Part 572 can be placed

inside the trunk compartment and, with

the test dummy in the trunk

compartment, the trunk lid can be

closed and latched. (Note: For purposes

of this standard, the Part 572 Subpart C

test dummy need not be equipped with

the accelerometers specified in Part

572.21.)

Trunk lid means a movable body

panel that provides access from outside

a motor vehicle to a trunk compartment.

S4. Requirements. 

S4.1 Each passenger car with a trunk

compartment must have an automatic or

manual release mechanism inside the

trunk compartment that unlatches the

trunk lid.

S4.2(a) Each manual release

mechanism installed pursuant to S4.1 of

this section must include a feature, like

lighting or phosphorescence, that allows

the release mechanism to be easily seen

inside the closed trunk.

(b) Each automatic release mechanism

installed pursuant to S4.1 of this section

must unlatch the trunk lid within 5

minutes of when the lid is closed with

a person inside the trunk compartment.

S4.3 Actuation of each release

mechanism required by S4.1 of this

section must completely release the

trunk lid from all latching positions of

the trunk lid latch, notwithstanding the

requirements of any other standards in

part 571 of this title.

Issued on October 17, 2000.

Sue Bailey,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 00–27038 Filed 10–17–00; 5:01 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 635

[I.D. 101300B]

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species

Fisheries; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Inseason transfer.

SUMMARY: NMFS adjusts the OctoberDecember subquota for the General

category Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT)

fishery by transferring 25 metric tons

(mt) from the Reserve, 15 mt from the

Longline North subcategory quota, and

60 mt from the Angling category (large

school size class for the northern area),

for a revised coastwide General category

subquota of approximately 264.4 mt for

October-December, including addition

of underharvest from the previous time

periods. These actions are being taken to

allow for maximum utilization of the

U.S. landings quota of BFT while

maintaining a fair distribution of fishing

opportunities, preventing overharvest of

the adjusted subquotas for the affected

fishing categories, helping achieve

optimum yield in the General category

fishery, and allowing the collection of a

broad range of data for stock monitoring

purposes, consistent with the objectives

of the Fishery Management Plan for

Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks

(HMS FMP).

DATES: Effective October 17, 2000 until

December 31, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pat

Scida, 978-281-9208.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulations implemented under the

authority of the Atlantic Tunas

Convention Act (16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.)

and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act (16

U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) governing the

harvest of BFT by persons and vessels

subject to U.S. jurisdiction are found at

50 CFR part 635. Section 635.27

subdivides the U.S. BFT quota

recommended by the International

Commission for the Conservation of

Atlantic Tunas among the various

domestic fishing categories.

Under the implementing regulations

at 50 CFR 635.27 (a)(7), NMFS has the

authority to allocate any portion of the

Reserve to any category quota in the

fishery, other than the Angling category

school BFT subquota (for which there is

a separate reserve), after considering the

following factors: (1) The usefulness of

information obtained from catches in

the particular category for biological

sampling and monitoring of the status of

the stock; (2) the catches of the

particular category quota to date and the

likelihood of closure of that segment of

the fishery if no allocation is made; (3)

the projected ability of the vessels

fishing under the particular category

quota to harvest the additional amount

of BFT before the end of the fishing

year; (4) the estimated amounts by

which quotas established for other gear

segments of the fishery might be

exceeded; (5) effects of the transfer on

BFT rebuilding and overfishing; and (6)

effects of the transfer on accomplishing

the objectives of the HMS FMP.

NMFS is also authorized under 50

CFR 635.27(a)(8) to transfer quotas

among categories, or, as appropriate,

subcategories, of the fishery. If it is

determined, based on the factors listed

here and the probability of exceeding

the total quota, that vessels fishing

under any category or subcategory quota

are not likely to take that quota, NMFS

may transfer inseason any portion of the

remaining quota of that fishing category

to any other fishing category or to the

reserve.

Quota Adjustments

Annual BFT quota specifications

issued under § 635.27 provide for a

quota of 634.3 mt of large medium and

giant BFT to be harvested from the

regulatory area by vessels fishing under

the General category quota during the

2000 fishing year. The General category

BFT quota is further subdivided into

time period subquotas to provide for

broad temporal and geographic

distribution of scientific data collection

and fishing opportunities. The OctoberDecember subquota was initially set at

62.4 mt for the 2000 fishing year, and

is currently 164.4 mt, after the addition

of approximately 102 mt of unharvested

subquota from previous periods. As of

October 10, 2000, General category

landings against this adjusted OctoberDecember subquota have totaled

approximately 79 mt, reducing the

available quota for the remainder of the

season to 85.4 mt. An additional 10 mt

has been set aside for the traditional fall

New York Bight fishery.

After considering the factors for

making transfers between categories and

from the Reserve, NMFS has determined

that 25 mt of the remaining 34.4 mt of

Reserve should be transferred to the

General category. In addition, NMFS has

determined that 15 mt of the remaining

Longline North subcategory quota of

approximately 26 mt should be