[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 160 (Friday, August 17, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43113-43121]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-20831]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-01-10381]
RIN 2127-AI51
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Interior Trunk Release
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In October 2000, NHTSA published a final rule establishing a
new Federal motor vehicle safety standard that will require passenger
cars with trunks to be equipped with a release latch inside the trunk
compartment. Four organizations filed petitions for reconsideration of
this rule.
In response to these petitions, the agency is making several
substantive changes to the final rule. It is excluding hatchbacks and
station wagons. It is also excluding sub-compartments that are formed
within the trunk compartment when a convertible power top folds down
into the trunk. The agency is changing the definition of ``trunk lid''
to explicitly exclude the lids of interior storage compartments. The
agency is revising the definition of ``trunk compartment'' to include
standard equipment in the determination of the size of the trunk
compartment. The agency is amending the standard to require that
interior trunk releases on passenger cars with front trunk compartments
unlatch the primary, but not the secondary, latch if the passenger car
is moving when the trunk release is actuated. The agency is providing
an additional year of lead-time for passenger cars with front trunk
compartments.
The agency is also denying requests: To exclude passenger cars with
trunk lids that contact the three-year-old child dummy (used to
determine whether a trunk compartment is large enough to be subject to
the standard) before latching, or provide those cars with an additional
year of lead-time; to require that the ignition be in the ``off''
position for an automatic trunk release system to operate; to require
that an automatic trunk release system may unlatch the trunk lid only
when a person inside the trunk compartment is moving; and to allow
means for temporary disabling of automatic trunk release systems.
Finally, the agency is adding a requirement that manufacturers
irrevocably select which compliance option, manual or automatic, they
will employ.
DATES: Effective date: The effective date for the amendments in this
final rule is September 1, 2001.
Petitions 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 October 1, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket
number and be submitted to: Administrator, Room 5220, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical and policy questions:
Kenneth O. Hardie, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, NHTSA, 400
Seventh Street,
[[Page 43114]]
SW, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: 202-366-6987) (Fax: 202-493-2739).
For legal questions: Dion Casey, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA,
400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20590 (Telephone: 202-366-
2992) (Fax: 202-366-3820).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Petitions for Reconsideration and NHTSA's Responses
A. Application
1. Hatchback Models
2. Station Wagon Models
3. Interior Storage Compartments
4. Sub-Compartments
5. Small Trunks
B. Performance Requirements
1. Complete Unlatching of Front-Opening Trunk Lids
2. Operation While the Vehicle Is in Motion
3. Operation When Trapped Person Is Stationary
4. Temporarily Disabling the System
C. Test Conditions for Trunk Size Determination
D. Irrevocable Election
E. Lead-Time
III. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. National Environmental Policy Act
D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
E. Civil Justice Reform
F. Paperwork Reduction Act
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
I. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
I. Background
On October 20, 2000, NHTSA published a final rule establishing a
new Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS No. 401, Interior
Trunk Release) to address the problem of trunk entrapment. (65 FR
63014). Trunk entrapment can occur accidentally, such as when a child
playing a game climbs into a trunk and pulls down the trunk lid, and
intentionally, such as when a criminal forces a person into the trunk.
The agency estimated that 21 people have died in 11 incidents of
accidental trunk entrapment from 1987 to 1999. Eleven of these were
children who died in three separate incidents when they locked
themselves in the trunk of an automobile during a three-week period in
July and August of 1998. The standard provides persons who find
themselves trapped inside a passenger car trunk a chance to get out of
the trunk alive.
Standard No. 401 requires all new passenger cars with trunks to be
equipped with an interior trunk release inside the trunk compartment,
beginning September 1, 2001. Manufacturers may comply with the standard
by installing a manual release latch or an automatic release system
which detects the presence of a person in the trunk and automatically
unlatches the trunk lid.
To aid readers in understanding this document, we have set out the
short standard, as published, in its entirety:
Sec. 571.401--Standard No. 401; Interior 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.
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.
II. Petitions for Reconsideration and NHTSA's Responses
NHTSA received petitions for reconsideration of the final rule from
General Motors North America (GM), and Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
(Porsche). The agency also received requests for interpretation of the
final rule from Volkswagen of America (VW) and the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance), whose members are the BMW Group,
Daimler Chrysler, Fiat, Ford Motor Company, GM, Isuzu, Mazda,
Mitsubishi Motors, Nissan, Porsche, Toyota, VW, and Volvo. VW and the
Alliance requested that if NHTSA disagreed with their interpretations
of the final rule, the agency treat the letters as petitions for
reconsideration. The Alliance also filed a letter which contained
comments supporting the GM and Porsche petitions for reconsideration.
A. Application
1. Hatchback Models
In their letters, VW and the Alliance requested that NHTSA issue a
letter of interpretation to confirm their understanding of Standard No.
401 as not applying to hatchback models. VW and the Alliance requested
that NHTSA determine that the hinged rear door (``hatch'') of hatchback
models is a ``back door'' rather than a ``trunk lid.'' VW and the
Alliance requested that if the agency disagreed with their
understanding of the standard, that the agency treat their letters as
petitions for reconsideration.
S3 of Standard No. 401 defines ``trunk compartment'' as 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.
The issue presented by VW and the Alliance is whether the hatch on
hatchback \1\ models is a ``trunk lid'' or a ``back door.'' S3 of
Standard No. 401 defines a ``trunk lid'' as ``a moveable body panel
that provides access from outside a motor vehicle to a trunk
compartment.'' Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention
Components, defines ``back door'' as ``a door or door system on the
back end of a motor vehicle through which passengers can enter or
depart the vehicle, or cargo can
[[Page 43115]]
be loaded or unloaded; but does not include: (a) A trunk lid * * * .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NHTSA uses the term ``hatchback'' in several of its
standards and regulations, but does not define it. The Environmental
Protection Agency has defined it in 40 CFR 600.002-85(a)(34) to mean
``a passenger automobile where the conventional luggage compartment,
i.e., trunk, is replaced by a cargo area which is open to the
passenger compartment and accessed vertically by a rear door which
encompasses the rear window.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA intended the terms ``back door'' and ``trunk lid'' to be
mutually exclusive. The agency made this distinction when it extended
the door lock and retention requirements of Standard No. 206, which
originally covered only side doors, to back doors, including the hatch
on hatchback models. (60 FR 50124, September 28, 1995). NHTSA did not
intend for trunk lids to have to meet the lock and retention
requirements, so the agency specifically excluded trunk lids from the
definition of ``back door.''
NHTSA intended to echo the distinction between a ``back door'' and
a ``trunk lid'' in the final rule establishing Standard No. 401. In the
preamble of that final rule, the agency stated that ``the requirements
in * * * Standard No. 206 only apply if the moveable panel is not a
trunk lid, and the requirements in this standard [No. 401] only apply
if the moveable panel is a trunk lid.'' (65 FR 63019).
Despite this distinction, however, the hatch on some hatchback
models may meet both the definition of ``back door'' and the definition
of ``trunk lid'' in the October 2000 final rule. For example, a hatch
may satisfy the latter part of the definition of a ``back door,'' i.e.,
a ``door on the back end of a motor vehicle through which passengers
can enter or depart the vehicle, or cargo can be loaded or unloaded.''
It is possible that some hatches may also satisfy the definition of a
``trunk lid,'' i.e., ``a moveable body panel that provides access from
outside a motor vehicle to a trunk compartment.'' A ``trunk
compartment'' is, in turn, defined as a space that ``is intended to be
used for carrying luggage,'' ``is wholly separated from the occupant
compartment * * * by a permanently attached partition or by a fixed or
fold-down seat back and/or partition,'' ``has a trunk lid [the
hatch],'' and is large enough to fit the three-year-old child dummy.
NHTSA recognizes that it may have used conflicting language in the
NPRM and the final rule establishing Standard No. 401. In the NPRM,
NHTSA said that the standard would not apply to the hatch on hatchback
models. The agency stated that its proposed definition of ``trunk lid''
would mean that ``the requirement for an interior 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.'' (64 FR 70675).
However, in the final rule, the agency stated:
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.
(65 FR 63017).
(This statement was intended to indicate that hatchbacks were included
only if the cargo area were actually wholly separated from the occupant
compartment. Conversely, hatchbacks were excluded if the cargo area was
only partially separated from the occupant compartment, e.g., by means
of netting or by a roll-out shade that leaves open spaces on the side.)
In addition, in response to comments from the Ford Motor Company
recommending that Standard No. 401 specifically exclude vehicles with
hinged back doors, such as vans, SUVs, station wagons, and hatchbacks,
that must comply with the latch requirements of Standard No. 206, the
agency stated:
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. (65
FR 63019).
The agency does not wish to apply Standard No. 401 to any
hatchbacks. The agency notes that the Expert Panel on Trunk Entrapment,
which was formed prior to the Standard No. 401 NPRM to study the
problem of trunk entrapment, did not address hatchbacks, nor were there
any data presented to the panel indicating that persons have died as a
result of their being inadvertently or intentionally locked in the rear
of hatchbacks. Absent such evidence, NHTSA is excluding them from
Standard No. 401. However, the agency will reconsider the applicability
of Standard No. 401 to some or all hatchbacks if data indicate that
trunk entrapment deaths are occurring in them.
The agency is amending Standard No. 401 by excluding vehicles with
a back door from the standard, adding a definition of ``back door,''
and changing the definition of ``trunk lid,'' as follows:
S2. Application. This standard applies to passenger cars that
have a trunk compartment. This standard does not apply to passenger
cars with a back door.
Back door means a door or door system on the back end of a
passenger car through which cargo can be loaded or unloaded. The
term includes the hinged back door on a hatchback or a station
wagon.
Trunk lid means a moveable body panel that is not designed or
intended as a passenger car entry point for passengers and that
provides access from outside a passenger car to a trunk compartment.
The term does not include a back door or the lid of a storage
compartment located inside the passenger compartment of a passenger
car.
2. Station Wagon Models
VW and the Alliance also asked the agency to confirm their
understanding that Standard No. 401 does not apply to station wagon
models equipped with luggage compartment covers. In its letter, VW
stated:
Volkswagen and Audi station wagon models provide a luggage
compartment cover, which operates like a roll-out shade or a net
that the customer can use to provide privacy or retention for the
luggage area. The luggage compartment cover can be released and
rolled back even when the back door is closed and is made of soft
material that can be moved aside by anyone who may be inside the
luggage compartment when the cover is closed. It is Volkswagen's
interpretation that such station wagon luggage compartment covers do
not form an enclosed space, which would require an interior release
for the back door of its station wagon models.
In its letter, the Alliance stated:
Station wagon models have open luggage compartment areas with
direct access from the luggage compartment into the occupant seating
area and therefore clearly do not have trunk compartments as defined in
FMVSS 401. However, some station wagon models are provided with luggage
cover accessories which operate like a roller shade or a netting and
which are made of soft materials that can be moved aside to provide
access from the covered luggage area to the passenger compartment.
For purposes of Standard No. 401, NHTSA has concluded that the rear
door on station wagon models is not, and should not be treated as, a
trunk lid. This conclusion is based primarily on the regulatory text in
the final rule. Being full of openings, a net would clearly not
``wholly separate'' (emphasis added) the passenger compartment from the
luggage area. Likewise, if a roll-out shade leaves any openings between
the passenger compartment and the luggage area, the rear door is not a
trunk lid under the final rule.
This conclusion is consistent with the Standard No. 401 NPRM. In
the NPRM, NHTSA proposed to exclude the rear door of station wagon
models. The agency stated that its proposed definition of ``trunk lid''
would mean that ``the requirement for an internal release would not
apply to vehicles that do not typically have trunk lids, like
[[Page 43116]]
hatchback cars, station wagons, pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles,
and vans.'' (64 FR 70675). Moreover, NHTSA is also concerned that, if
the agency were to require the rear door of station wagon models to
have an interior release mechanism, a child seated in the rear of a
station wagon might be able to activate the mechanism and open the rear
door while the station wagon is in motion.
Thus, the agency is amending Standard No. 401 by adding a
definition of ``back door,'' changing the definition of ``trunk lid,''
and excluding vehicles with a back door from the standard as noted
above in the section on hatchback models.
3. Interior Storage Compartments
The Alliance expressed concern regarding the applicability of
Standard No. 401 to interior storage compartments in convertibles. The
Alliance stated:
It is conceivable that if a convertible top is down, a vehicle
interior compartment door could be opened from outside the vehicle.
In some vehicles, the interior storage compartment could accommodate
a 3-year-old dummy.
For example, the Toyota MR2-Spyder, a two-seat convertible, has two
interior storage compartments, one behind each of the seats. In this
vehicle, in order to open the compartment doors, the driver's seat and/
or passenger's seat would have to be inclined forward. Otherwise, the
seat in front of the interior compartment would block the compartment
door. The Alliance argued that, in this case, even if a trunk release
were required and installed in the interior compartment, the
compartment doors would not open enough to allow egress from the
compartment, unless the seats are inclined forward. Thus, the Alliance
asked the agency to confirm that Standard No. 401 does not apply to
interior storage compartments.
NHTSA agrees with this interpretation. The agency does not consider
interior storage compartments to be ``trunk compartments.'' The lids of
interior storage compartments do not provide access from outside a
motor vehicle to a trunk compartment. The agency did not intend for
interior storage compartments to be subject to the requirements of
Standard No. 401. To address this, the agency is revising the
definition of ``trunk lid'' to read as follows:
Trunk lid means a moveable body panel that is not designed or
intended as a vehicle entry point for passengers and that provides
access from outside a motor vehicle to a trunk compartment. It does
not mean the lid of a storage compartment located inside the
passenger compartment of the vehicle.
4. Sub-Compartments
The Alliance stated that some convertible models are equipped with
a power top that folds down into the vehicle trunk, thereby
partitioning the trunk space into sub-compartments. There may be
sufficient room for a three-year-old child to become trapped in such a
sub-compartment when the top is stowed. However, for this to happen,
the child would have to access a sub-compartment during the short time
when the power top is actively being stowed. Further, stowing the power
top requires the vehicle key to be actuated and a button to be
continuously pressed, indicating that an adult is present. In addition,
for the sub-compartment to be accessible during this time, a child
would have to be in the trunk compartment already. Based upon these
circumstances, the Alliance asked NHTSA to confirm its understanding
that the interior trunk release need not be accessible to children
trapped in the sub-compartments created by stowing a convertible power
top in the vehicle's trunk compartment.
The Alliance's understanding is correct. The agency believes that
it is highly unlikely that a child could become trapped in such a sub-
compartment under the circumstances described in the Alliance letter.
Thus, the interior trunk release in convertible models with power tops
that stow in the trunk compartment need not be accessible to a child
trapped in the sub-compartments created by stowing the power top.
The trunk compartment of a convertible model with a power top that
stows in the trunk still must have an interior trunk release. A person
may become trapped in the trunk compartment while the power top is up.
The agency is only stating that the interior trunk release in such a
model need not be accessible to a child trapped in the sub-compartments
created in the trunk compartment by stowing the power top.
To address this, the agency is revising the definition of ``trunk
compartment'' to add the following at the end:
(b) does not include a sub-compartment within the trunk
compartment.
5. Small Trunks
Standard No. 401 requires a trunk compartment to have an interior
trunk release mechanism if the trunk compartment ``[i]s 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.''
In its letter, the Alliance stated:
Alliance member companies have evaluated this space requirement
on some vehicles and found cases where the trunk lid could not close
and latch if the trunk lid is rested on the dummy in the trunk
compartment. However, if the trunk lid were ``slammed'' or pushed
down, squeezing the dummy into the compartment with the lid, the
trunk lid could be latched. If a child was actually in this
situation, we believe no movement would be afforded to allow the
child to operate a trunk release nor would the child be expected to
be able to ``slam'' down the trunk lid onto themselves.
The Alliance asked the agency to confirm its understanding that
trunk lids that contact the dummy before latching are not required to
have an interior release mechanism.
NHTSA disagrees with this understanding. The agency notes that
while the three-year-old child dummy used in the evaluation of the size
of the trunk compartment is not pliable, children are. A child may bend
and squeeze him/herself into a space in which a dummy would not be able
to fit due to its inflexibility. Moreover, although a child in such a
trunk compartment may not be able to pull down and close the trunk lid,
a second child may be able to push the trunk lid down, trapping the
first child in the trunk compartment. In addition, many vehicles
manufactured by members of the Alliance have closure assisting devices
as part of the trunk latch design. These provide the closure force that
is necessary to perform latching, without the need for slamming. Thus,
the agency believes that if the trunk lid can be closed with the three-
year-old child dummy in the trunk compartment, the trunk lid is
required to have an interior release.
The Alliance's argument that a child trapped in such a small trunk
would not have enough room to operate a manual trunk release is not
persuasive because the standard allows vehicles to be equipped with
automatic trunk releases as well as manual releases.
Since NHTSA disagreed with this portion of the Alliance letter, the
agency treated it as a petition for reconsideration. That part of the
Alliance petition is denied.
B. Performance Requirements
1. Complete Unlatching of Front-Opening Trunk Lids
S4.3 of Standard No. 401 requires the trunk release mechanism to
``completely release the trunk lid from all latching positions of the
trunk lid latch,
[[Page 43117]]
notwithstanding the requirements of any other'' Federal motor vehicle
safety standards. Standard No. 113, Hood Latch System, requires front
opening hoods which, in any open position, partially or completely
obstruct a driver's forward view through the windshield to be provided
with a second latch position on the hood latch system or with a second
hood latch system. The purpose of Standard No. 113 is to prevent front
opening hoods from flying open and obstructing the driver's view while
the vehicle is in motion.
Porsche manufactures several passenger car models with front
opening hoods. In its petition for reconsideration, Porsche maintained
that having a trunk release mechanism that unlocks or opens a front
opening hood from all latching positions or latches while the vehicle
is in motion results in risk of injuring the driver, passenger, and
other motorists whether the release functions as intended or
inadvertently. Thus, Porsche requested that the agency ``modify S4.3 of
the final rule to indicate that, for front-opening hoods, only the
primary latch need be completely released.''
Porsche requested that if NHTSA denied this recommendation, the
agency provide manufacturers the option of disabling the interior trunk
release system when the passenger car is in motion. Porsche stated that
it currently deactivates the standard electro-mechanical hood release
on its passenger cars when they have obtained a speed of 5 km/h
2 km/h.
NHTSA is granting Porsche's request to amend Standard No. 401 to
indicate that for front opening hoods, only the primary latch need be
completely released. As NHTSA stated in the preamble to the final rule,
the agency believes that allowing a trapped person to get out of the
trunk is paramount. However, NHTSA recognizes the significant
additional risk of completely releasing a front opening hood while the
passenger car is in motion. The release of both the primary and
secondary latches when the passenger car is in motion could result in
the hood flying open and obstructing the driver's forward view through
the windshield. In addition, if the driver were to apply the brakes in
such a situation, the trapped person could be ejected from the trunk
compartment.
The agency agrees with Porsche that if only the primary latch is
released when the passenger car is in motion, the hazard of collision
and possible ejection of the trapped person would be greatly reduced.
In addition, release of the primary latch would at least provide the
trapped person with access to outside air and increase the possibility
of the trapped person being noticed by others.
The agency notes that this change would not favor victims of
intentional entrapment. Such victims would not be able to completely
release the trunk lid and escape, at least not while the passenger car
was in motion. To address this, the agency is requiring that the trunk
lid open completely when the passenger car is stationary or moving at a
speed of less than 3 km/h.
Thus, the agency is adding a paragraph (b) to S4.3 of Standard No.
401, to read as follows:
S4.3(b) For passenger cars with a front trunk compartment that
has a front opening hood required to have a secondary latch
position, actuation of the release mechanism required by paragraph
S4.1 of this standard when the passenger car is in motion (at a
speed of 3 km/h or more) must release the primary latch position,
but not the secondary latch position. At all other times, actuation
of the release mechanism required by paragraph S4.1 of this standard
must completely release the trunk lid from all latching positions of
the trunk lid latch. The passenger cars described in this paragraph
are excluded from the requirements of this standard until September
1, 2002.
The agency notes that the amended text requires actuation of the
release mechanism when the passenger car is stationary or moving at a
speed of less than 3 km/h to release the latch completely from all
latch positions, regardless of the previous state of the latches or
whether the primary latch has been released during passenger car
movement. Since NHTSA is granting this request, the agency does not
have to address Porsche's request to provide manufacturers the option
of disabling the interior trunk release system when the vehicle is in
motion.
The agency realizes that this amendment adds some complexity to the
design of trunk release systems for passenger cars with a trunk
compartment located in the front. It also imposes an additional
performance requirement associated with the speed of the passenger car.
However, the agency has not estimated the costs of this additional
burden. The agency believes that very few passenger cars have a trunk
compartment located in the front. Moreover, the agency notes that
Porsche stated that it currently deactivates the standard electro-
mechanical hood release on its passenger cars when they have obtained a
speed of 5 km/h 2 km/h. Thus, the requirement that the
front hood lid only release the primary latch when the passenger car
has obtained a speed of 3 km/h should not be a substantial burden.
2. Operation of Automatic Systems While the Vehicle Is in Motion
Standard No. 401 permits passenger car manufacturers to install an
automatic trunk release system which detects the presence of a person
in the trunk and automatically unlatches the trunk lid. S4.2(b) of the
standard requires such systems to ``unlatch the trunk lid within 5
minutes of when the lid is closed with a person inside the trunk
compartment.'' The standard does not specify that the automatic trunk
release system must operate only when the passenger car is stationary.
In its petition for reconsideration, GM stated that it has designed
an automatic trunk release system that senses a combination of motion
and a difference in temperature in the trunk compartment, i.e., a
difference in the temperature of the trunk compartment and the
temperature of an object in the trunk compartment. However, the system
is not designed to operate while the passenger car is in motion because
unsecured cargo (such as a basketball) often moves in the trunk while
the passenger car is in motion. If automatic trunk release systems are
required to operate while the passenger car is in motion, GM argued,
motion detectors, even when used in combination with a temperature
sensor, could not be used without the risk of causing unwanted trunk
releases and possible adverse safety consequences.
GM also stated that motion sensors could not be used if automatic
trunk release systems are required to operate while the passenger car
is stationary for a short time, such as when the passenger car is in
gear but stopped at a stop light. GM said that there are two reasons
for this:
First, motion is imminent when the ignition is on, and an
unwanted trunk release could occur. [We take this to mean the trunk
lid could open right before the vehicle resumes motion.] Second, the
vehicle's ability to measure the speed at which it is moving has
poor resolution at very low speeds. Therefore, a vehicle that is
inching forward in a parking lot or at a stop light will not
register motion, but the motion sensor in the trunk will register
the motion of the cargo that is moving as a result of the vehicle's
motion.
GM claimed that its testing has demonstrated that a truck passing a
stopped passenger car can generate movement inside the trunk
compartment of the stopped car that could mimic human-like motion. In
addition, GM stated that persons moving inside the passenger
compartment can cause motion to be registered inside the trunk
compartment
[[Page 43118]]
even though the passenger car is stationary.
Either of these occurrences could cause the trunk lid to open while
the passenger car is in motion. GM also stated that it is not aware of
any child trunk entrapment incident involving a passenger car that was
in motion shortly after the child become trapped.
For these reasons, GM's automatic trunk release system is designed
to operate only when the passenger car is stationary and the ignition
is off. GM stated:
GM believes that requiring a passive [automatic] system to work
when the vehicle is in motion or when motion is imminent will impose
a significant and unwarranted design restriction that may preclude
manufacturers from introducing passive systems. GM believes that
such a restriction is not necessary to achieve the purposes of FMVSS
401, and that the final rule should allow manufacturers the
flexibility to determine optimal design solutions, including the use
of motion detectors in passive trunk release systems.
To address this issue, GM recommended that language such as ``a
stationary vehicle with the key off'' be added to S4.2(b) of Standard
No. 401.
NHTSA is denying GM's request to amend S4.2(b) so that automatic
trunk release systems do not have to operate while the passenger car is
in motion. NHTSA understands GM's concerns with respect to inanimate
objects moving in the trunk compartment causing the trunk lid to open
while the passenger car is in motion. However, the agency has concluded
that the conditions suggested by GM are not suitable.
GM stated that it was not aware of a child entrapment incident
involving a passenger car that was in motion shortly after the child
became entrapped. NHTSA is aware of at least two possible such
incidents. An Associated Press account of the five children who died in
Utah in August 1998, reported that a relative of two of the five
children who died in the trunk compartment drove the vehicle around the
neighborhood searching for the children, unaware that their bodies were
in the vehicle's trunk compartment. The newspaper account stated that
this situation was similar to another incident in New Mexico, where
four children died in July 1998 after climbing into the trunk
compartment of a vehicle. Relatives searching for the children drove
the vehicle for nearly an hour before finding their bodies in the trunk
compartment.
In neither case is it clear how long the children had been trapped
in the trunk compartments before their relatives began driving the car.
Consequently, NHTSA considers the 5 minute time limit in S4.2(b) a
reasonable safety requirement for all automatic trunk release systems,
whether or not the passenger car is moving.
NHTSA also believes that the suggested requirement that the key
that controls activation of the passenger car's engine be in the
``off'' position before the automatic trunk release system will operate
could preclude possible escape from the trunk compartment by trapped
persons. Individuals trapped in the trunk compartment (as a result of
criminal entrapment or inadvertent trunk locking) would be unable to
escape if the key or controlling device were intentionally or
inadvertently left by the driver in some position other than the
``off'' position. Thus, the agency is denying the GM request to amend
the standard to require that the key be in the ``off'' position for the
automatic trunk release system to operate.
3. Operation of Automatic Systems When Trapped Person Is Stationary
GM also stated that its automatic trunk release system cannot
detect a person in the trunk compartment if that person remains
stationary. The system requires some motion to activate the trunk
release. If automatic systems are required to open the trunk when a
person, whether stationary or moving, is inside the trunk compartment
for five minutes, the GM system will be precluded. Thus, GM recommended
that language be added to S4.2(b) requiring automatic trunk release
systems to unlatch the trunk lid only when the trapped person is moving
and attempting to escape.
GM suggested revising S4.2(b) as follows:
S4.2(b) Each automatic release mechanism installed pursuant to
S4.1 of this section must unlatch the trunk lid within 5 minutes
when all of the following conditions are met:
(1) the vehicle is stationary;
(2) the key that controls activation of the vehicle's engine is
in the ``off'' position;
(3) the lid is closed; and
(4) a person inside the trunk compartment is simulating an
attempt to escape by continually reaching for two or more of the
interior sides of the trunk by gross arm(s) and/or leg(s) motion for
three minutes.
NHTSA is denying GM's request to amend the standard by requiring
that an automatic trunk release system may unlatch the trunk lid only
when a person inside the trunk compartment is moving. The agency has
determined that such a requirement would result in an ineffective
system. According to GM's study, and a child psychologist who testified
before the Expert Panel on Trunk Entrapment, many children who become
trapped in trunk compartments simply ``shut down'' and passively wait
for rescue. An automatic trunk release system that depends on the
occupant continually moving around for three minutes appears to require
greater effort by the trapped person than a manual trunk release
system, which simply requires the trapped person to pull a lever.
NHTSA wishes to accommodate as broad an array of technologies as
possible. The agency agrees with GM that an automatic trunk release
system offers some conceptual advantages for helping trapped persons
escape from the trunk, especially young children who may have trouble
activating a manual trunk release system. However, the conditions
suggested by GM for activation of its automatic system would result in
trunk release systems that would not effectively accomplish the safety
purpose of Standard No. 401. In the near term, GM may equip its
vehicles with a manual trunk release system until some of the
difficulties associated with automatic trunk release systems can be
worked out. NHTSA will work with GM and other manufacturers to
understand the capabilities and limitations of current automatic trunk
release systems and attempt to develop performance criteria that would
ensure that those systems effectively accomplish the safety purpose of
the standard and would be feasible for current automatic systems.
4. Temporarily Disabling the System
GM also stated that drivers may occasionally want to disable the
automatic trunk release system so that the motion of the passenger car
or items in the trunk will not cause the trunk to open. GM would like
to provide a means of temporarily disabling the system without
affecting the safety benefits of the system. Accordingly, GM requested
that the agency add an additional paragraph to Standard No. 401 as
follows:
S4.2(c) An automatic release mechanism may be capable of being
deactivated only if all of the following conditions are met:
(1) the key that controls activation of the vehicle's engine is
in the ``on'' position;
(2) the deactivation switch is located away from the driver's
position or the deactivation process requires multiple deliberate
actions;
(3) the system is automatically reactivated when the trunk is
opened; and
(4) the system can manually be reactivated from inside the trunk
or otherwise can unlatch the trunk.
NHTSA is denying GM's request to amend the standard to allow for
temporary disabling of automatic trunk
[[Page 43119]]
release systems. As a general rule, NHTSA does not permit the
overriding of a safety device required by a Federal motor vehicle
safety standard unless there are significant safety issues involving
potential risks to individuals if the safety device is not disabled.
For example, the agency permits the disabling or deactivation of
passenger side air bags only under certain limited circumstances. The
agency does not believe that safety devices should be disabled simply
for purposes of operational convenience. GM has not cited any
significant safety issues involving potential risks to individuals if
the automatic trunk release system is not disabled.
C. Test Conditions for Trunk Size Determination
The Alliance noted that in the preamble to the Standard No. 401
final rule, NHTSA stated its intention to require manufacturers to
conduct the evaluation to determine whether the three-year-old child
dummy can fit inside the trunk compartment with all standard equipment
in the trunk compartment (e.g., spare tire, wheel jack, tools, etc.).
In fact, the agency stated in the preamble that ``[s]uch an evaluation
must be conducted with all standard equipment in the trunk (i.e., spare
tire, wheel jack, tools, etc.).'' (65 FR 63018). However, this test
specification was inadvertently omitted from the regulatory text. The
Alliance petitioned NHTSA to revise the regulatory text to include this
specification.
The agency is granting this request. The agency is revising
paragraph (d) in the definition of ``trunk compartment'' to read as
follows:
(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 the trunk lid can be closed and latched, with all
removable equipment furnished by the passenger car manufacturer
stowed in the trunk compartment in accordance with label(s) on the
passenger car or information in the passenger car owner's manual,
or, if no information is provided, as located when the passenger car
is delivered. (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.)
D. Irrevocable Election
Standard No. 401 allows manufacturers the option of installing a
manual or automatic trunk release. Over the past five years, when NHTSA
has allowed such a compliance option in a Federal motor vehicle safety
standard, the agency has required that manufacturers irrevocably elect
which option they will use to comply with the standard. Thus, when
NHTSA officials conduct compliance testing of vehicles, they will know
which requirements the vehicle must meet. For example, S6.1 of Standard
No. 201, ``Occupant Protection in Interior Impact,'' allows
manufacturers different compliance options. It also requires
manufacturers to irrevocably select which compliance option they will
employ at the time they certify their vehicles.
This requirement was inadvertently omitted from the final rule
establishing Standard No. 401. Accordingly, the agency is revising S4.1
to read as follows:
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. Each trunk release shall conform, at
the manufacturer's option, to either S4.2(a) and S4.3, or S4.2(b)
and S4.3. The manufacturer shall select the option by the time it
certifies the vehicle and may not thereafter select a different
option for the vehicle.
E. Lead-Time
Standard No. 401 applies to new passenger cars manufactured on or
after September 1, 2001. In its letter, the Alliance requested an
additional year (until September 1, 2002) of lead-time if NHTSA
interprets the standard as applying to hatchback or station wagon
models, interior storage compartments, sub-compartments within the
trunk compartment, or vehicles with trunk lids that contact the three-
year-old child dummy before latching. As a result of the amendments
discussed above, the standard does not apply to hatchback or station
wagon models, interior storage compartments, or sub-compartments within
the trunk compartment. Thus, the agency need not address the issue of
additional lead-time for these vehicles.
The standard does apply to passenger cars with trunk lids that can
be closed despite contacting the dummy before latching. The agency
notes that the NPRM and final rule preambles did not state or imply
that trunk compartments with trunk lids that contact the dummy before
latching would be excluded from the standard. Nor was this issue
addressed in any comments to the NPRM. The agency is unaware of any
technical challenges that such trunk compartments pose to the
development and manufacture of interior trunk release mechanisms.
Therefore, the Alliance's request for additional lead-time beyond the
September 1, 2001 effective date of the standard is denied.
Porsche requested that the agency grant additional lead-time of at
least one year from the date the agency grants or denies its
recommended changes with regard to passenger cars with front opening
trunk lids.
In response to the Porsche petition, NHTSA is amending the standard
to allow passenger cars with front opening trunk lids to unlatch only
the primary latch position when the passenger car is in motion. The
agency notes that this amendment adds some complexity to the design of
trunk release systems for passenger cars with trunk compartments
located in the front. It also imposes an additional performance
requirement associated with the speed of the passenger car. Because
this amendment represents an increase in burden to manufacturers of
passenger cars with trunk compartments located in the front, NHTSA has
decided to extend the effective date for these passenger cars by one
year. Thus, the effective date for passenger cars with trunk
compartments which are located at the front and have a front opening
hood required to have a secondary latch position is September 1, 2002.
GM stated that if NHTSA adopted GM's requested changes, GM would be
able to meet Standard No. 401's current effective date of September 1,
2001. However, GM said that if the agency did not adopt GM's requested
changes, it would need additional development, tooling, and validation
time to incorporate complying systems. Thus, GM requested that the
agency grant an additional year of lead-time for passenger cars
equipped with automatic trunk release systems. In subsequent
communications with the agency, GM withdrew that request.
The agency realizes that manufacturers may have experienced some
difficulties in designing an automatic trunk release system that
complies with the standard. As noted above, NHTSA will work with GM and
other manufacturers to understand the capabilities and limitations of
current automatic trunk release systems and attempt to develop
performance criteria that would ensure that those systems effectively
accomplish the safety purpose of the standard and would be feasible for
current automatic systems. NHTSA does not wish to discourage the use of
automatic systems because the agency believes that automatic systems
may have some advantages over manual systems in certain situations. For
example, young children may have some trouble operating a manual
release, especially if they are frightened and disoriented, as one
would expect a young child trapped in a trunk to be. Also, as stated
above, many children who become trapped in trunk compartments simply
``shut down'' and
[[Page 43120]]
passively wait for rescue. Finally, a person who is intentionally
placed in a trunk, i.e., by a criminal, may be unconscious or
physically restrained, and thus unable to operate a manual release.
Since an automatic trunk release system opens the trunk lid without
requiring a trapped person to take any action, it may provide a better
chance of escape than a manual trunk release system in these types of
situations.
III. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action''
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
This rulemaking document was not reviewed under Executive Order
12866. It is not significant within the meaning of the DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures. The only additional burden it imposes is on
manufacturers of vehicles with trunk compartments located at the front
of the vehicle. These vehicles must release only the primary latch when
the interior trunk release mechanism is actuated while the vehicle is
in motion.
The agency has no evidence that this requirement will significantly
increase the costs of complying with Standard No. 401 for such
vehicles. Further, the agency believes that very few vehicles have
trunk compartments located at the front of the vehicle. Moreover, the
agency notes that Porsche, in its petition for reconsideration, stated
that it currently deactivates the standard electro-mechanical hood
release on its vehicles when the vehicle has obtained a speed of 5 km/h
2 km/h. Thus, the requirement that the front hood lid only
release the primary latch when the vehicle has obtained a speed of 3
km/h should not be a substantial burden. The agency believes that 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 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996) 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
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). 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. SBREFA amended the Regulatory
Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of
the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As noted above, the agency has not estimated the costs associated
with this rulemaking. The sole additional requirement imposed by this
rulemaking is on vehicles with trunk compartments located at the front.
The agency believes that very few such vehicles are manufactured.
Moreover, the only manufacturer of such vehicles that the agency is
aware of is Porsche, which does not qualify as a small entity. 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. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that
implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on
the quality of the human environment.
D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
Executive Order 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue a
regulation with Federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, the agency
consults with State and local governments, or the agency consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. NHTSA also may not issue a regulation with
Federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the agency
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
The agency has analyzed this rulemaking action in accordance with
the principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132. NHTSA
has determined that this final rule does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Accordingly, a Federalism Assessment has not been prepared.
E. Civil Justice Reform
This final rule will not have any retroactive effect. Under 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.
[[Page 43121]]
F. 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.
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272)
directs us to use voluntary consensus standards in our regulatory
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
There are no voluntary consensus standards available at this time.
NHTSA will consider any such SAE recommended practices if they become
available.
H. 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 final rule will not have any such impacts
on those parties. As noted above, the agency has not estimated expects
the costs associated with this rule. However, the agency believes that
they will be minimal, as the only additional burden imposed by this
final rule will affect very few vehicles. Consequently, no Unfunded
Mandates assessment has been prepared.
I. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber products,
tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA is amending 49 CFR chapter
V as follows:
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, 21411, 21415, 21417, and 21466;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 571.401 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 571.401 Standard No. 401; Interior 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.
S2. Application. This standard applies to passenger cars that have
a trunk compartment. This standard does not apply to passenger cars
with a back door.
S3. Definitions.
Back door means a door or door system on the back end of a
passenger car through which cargo can be loaded or unloaded. The term
includes the hinged back door on a hatchback or a station wagon.
Trunk compartment. (a) Means a space that:
(1) Is intended to be used for carrying luggage or cargo,
(2) 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,
(3) Has a trunk lid, and
(4) 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 the trunk lid can be closed and latched with all
removable equipment furnished by the passenger car manufacturer stowed
in accordance with label(s) on the passenger car or information in the
passenger car owner's manual, or, if no information is provided, as
located when the passenger car is delivered. (Note: For purposes of
this standard, the Part 572 Subpart C test dummy need not be equipped
with the accelerometers specified in Sec. 572.21.)
(b) Does not include a sub-compartment within the trunk
compartment.
Trunk lid means a moveable body panel that is not designed or
intended as a passenger car entry point for passengers and that
provides access from outside a passenger car to a trunk compartment.
The term does not include a back door or the lid of a storage
compartment located inside the passenger compartment of a passenger
car.
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. Each trunk release shall conform, at the
manufacturer's option, to either S4.2(a) and S4.3, or S4.2(b) and S4.3.
The manufacturer shall select the option by the time it certifies the
vehicle and may not thereafter select a different option for the
vehicle.
S4.2(a) Each manual release mechanism installed pursuant to S4.1 of
this standard must include a feature, like lighting or phosphorescence,
that allows the release mechanism to be easily seen inside the closed
trunk compartment.
(b) Each automatic release mechanism installed pursuant to S4.1 of
this section must unlatch the trunk lid within 5 minutes of when the
trunk lid is closed with a person inside the trunk compartment.
S4.3(a) Except as provided in paragraph S4.3(b), actuation of the
release mechanism required by S4.1 of this standard must completely
release the trunk lid from all latching positions of the trunk lid
latch.
(b) For passenger cars with a front trunk compartment that has a
front opening hood required to have a secondary latch position,
actuation of the release mechanism required by paragraph S4.1 of this
standard when the passenger car is in motion (at a speed of 3 km/h or
more) must release the primary latch position, but not the secondary
latch position. At all other times, actuation of the release mechanism
required by paragraph S4.1 of this standard must completely release the
trunk lid from all latching positions of the trunk lid latch. The
passenger cars described in this paragraph are excluded from the
requirements of this standard until September 1, 2002.
Issued: August 7, 2001.
L. Robert Shelton,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 01-20831 Filed 8-15-01; 11:07 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P