[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 204 (Friday, October 20, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63014-63021]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27038]


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

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

[[Page 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 mid-1999 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

[[Page 63016]]

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-in-the-dark'' additive, so it needs 
no electrical power. The handle is quick-charging--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

[[Page 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

    <bullet> 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 heavy-duty 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.
    <bullet> Definition of ``Trunk lid''--In using the FMVSS No. 206 
definition of ``trunk lid'' as proposed in the NPRM, a pick-up 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

[[Page 63018]]

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.
    <bullet> 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, Daimler-Chrysler, 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 Three-Year-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-year-old 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-year-old 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 year-old 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.

[[Page 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.
    <bullet> Leadtime--Some vehicle manufacturers stated that an 
engineering solution for an inside-the-trunk 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 ``stack-up''), 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 time-frame. 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% phase-in, 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.
    <bullet> 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 ``manually-
activated'' 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.
    <bullet> 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 in-use 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

[[Page 63020]]

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:


Sec. 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.

[[Page 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 three-year-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