[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 77 (Monday, April 22, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19518-19523]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-9677]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-01-10381]
RIN 2127-AI69


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: This document responds to two petitions for reconsideration by 
Porsche Cars North America, Inc., and Ferrari S.p.A of a new Federal 
motor vehicle safety standard that requires passenger cars with a trunk 
to be equipped with a release latch inside the trunk compartment. 
Porsche requested that the agency exclude the cars having a front trunk 
with a front-opening lid from the standard. Both petitioners asked that 
the performance requirements applicable to these cars be revised. In 
addition, Ferrari asked that manufacturers of these cars be given 
additional lead time to bring them into compliance. The agency is 
denying the request to exclude these cars from the standard and the 
request to grant their manufacturers additional lead time. However, it 
is granting the request to modify the performance requirements by 
increasing the speed threshold at which the interior release of a front 
trunk with a front-opening lid must release only the primary latch.
    The petitioners also requested that the agency modify the 
requirement that manufacturers irrevocably select a compliance option 
by the time they certify compliance to permit a manufacturer to modify 
or replace the interior trunk release system during the production 
period of a model. The agency believes this change is

[[Page 19519]]

unnecessary for the purposes for which it is being sought. Finally, the 
petitioners requested that the agency issue detailed test procedures as 
soon as possible. NHTSA is developing detailed test procedures and will 
publish them as soon as possible.

DATES: Effective: August 30, 2002. If you wish to petition for 
reconsideration of this final rule, you must submit your petition so 
that we receive it not later than June 6, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket 
number above 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, 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, DC 20590 (Telephone: 202-366-2992) 
(Fax: 202-366-3820).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Trunk entrapment can occur in two different ways: accidentally, 
such as when a child playing a game climbs into a trunk and pulls down 
the lid; and intentionally, such as when a criminal forces a person 
into a trunk. NHTSA has documented 21 cases of individuals who died 
from accidental trunk entrapment from 1987 to 1999. Twenty of these 
cases involved the death of a child six years of age or less. Eleven of 
these children died in three separate incidents during a three-week 
period between July and August of 1998 when they locked themselves in 
the rear trunks of passenger cars.
    On October 20, 2000, NHTSA published a final rule establishing a 
new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 401, Interior Trunk 
Release, to address the problem of trunk entrapment. (65 FR 63014). 
Standard No. 401 provides persons who become trapped inside a passenger 
car trunk with a chance to escape. The standard requires all new 
passenger cars with a trunk compartment to be equipped with a trunk 
release inside the compartment. Manufacturers may comply with the 
standard by installing either a manual release latch, or an automatic 
release system, i.e., one that detects the presence of a person in the 
trunk and automatically unlatches the trunk lid.
    In response to petitions for reconsideration of that final rule, 
NHTSA made several amendments to the standard. (66 FR 43113, August 17, 
2001). The agency excluded passenger cars with a back door, such as 
hatchbacks and station wagons, from having to comply with the 
requirements of the standard. The agency also revised the definitions 
of ``trunk lid'' and ``trunk compartment'' to exclude interior storage 
compartments and sub-compartments within the trunk compartment from the 
requirements of the standard.
    Finally, the agency addressed issues associated with vehicles with 
front trunk compartments. Standard No. 113, Hood Latch System, requires 
front-opening hoods that, in any open position, partially or completely 
obstruct a driver's forward view through the windshield to be provided 
with a secondary 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 moving forward. However, notwithstanding Standard 
No. 113, S4.3 of Standard No. 401 originally required the interior 
trunk release mechanism to ``completely release the trunk lid from all 
latching positions of the trunk lid latch, notwithstanding the 
requirements of any other'' FMVSS.
    Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (Porsche), which manufactures 
several passenger car models that have front trunks with front-opening 
lids, submitted a petition for reconsideration. In its petition, 
Porsche argued that having a trunk release mechanism that unlocks or 
opens a front-opening trunk lid from all latching positions or latches 
while the vehicle is in motion results in risk of injuring the driver, 
passengers, person trapped in the front trunk, and other motorists 
whether the release functions as intended or inadvertently. Thus, 
Porsche requested that NHTSA modify S4.3 of Standard No. 401 to 
indicate that, for front-opening front trunk lids, only the primary 
latch need be completely released.
    Porsche asked that if NHTSA denied this request, the agency provide 
manufacturers the option of disabling the front trunk's interior 
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 granted Porsche's request to modify S4.3 of Standard No. 401. 
The agency added a paragraph indicating that in passenger cars with 
front-opening trunk lids, the interior trunk release must release the 
primary, but not the secondary, latch when the passenger car is in 
motion (at a speed of 3 km/h or more). At all other times, the interior 
trunk release must completely release all latches. The agency gave 
manufacturers of vehicles with front trunk compartments an additional 
year to comply with the standard. These amendments described above took 
effect on September 1, 2001, except the amendment to S4.3, which takes 
effect on September 1, 2002.

II. Petitions for Reconsideration and NHTSA's Responses

    NHTSA received petitions for reconsideration of the August 17, 2001 
final rule from Porsche and Ferrari S.p.A. (Ferrari). The issues they 
raised are addressed below.

A. Application

    Porsche requested that the agency exclude passenger cars that have 
a front trunk with a front-opening lid from Standard No. 401. Porsche 
stated:

    The probability of a child becoming trapped in a front trunk is 
substantially less than for the typical passenger car with a rear 
trunk. First, for entrapment to occur one has to be cognizant of the 
fact that the trunk is located in the front of the car, second the 
front lid requires considerable skill to open, and third an 
application of a significant force is required to fully latch the 
compartment. Most vehicles with front located trunks are high 
performance vehicles and rarely used as the primary means of 
transportation. Such cars are generally carefully garaged and kept 
away from areas where the vehicle could be damaged or misused.

    Porsche also noted that the Expert Panel on Trunk Entrapment, which 
was formed prior to the Standard No. 401 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM) to study the problem of trunk entrapment, did not address front 
trunks and did not receive any data indicating that persons have died 
as a result of their being accidentally or intentionally locked in 
front trunk compartments.
    NHTSA is denying this request. The agency notes that Porsche made 
similar arguments in its comments to the Standard No. 401 NPRM. The 
agency responded to those arguments in the October 20, 2000 final rule 
as follows: ``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.'' (65 FR 63018).
    The agency has no reports of individuals who became accidentally 
trapped in front trunks. While this may suggest that individuals are 
less likely to

[[Page 19520]]

become trapped in front trunks, the agency still believes that there is 
enough of a potential risk of inadvertent entrapment to warrant 
subjecting vehicles with front trunks to the requirements of Standard 
No. 401.\1\ Moreover, Porsche's arguments do not address the problem of 
intentional entrapment. An individual who is intentionally trapped in a 
trunk must be able to escape regardless of whether the trunk is located 
in the front or rear of the vehicle. For these reasons, the agency is 
denying Porsche's request to exclude passenger cars that have a front 
trunk with a front-opening lid from Standard No. 401.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Porsche notes that the Expert Panel on Trunk Entrapment did 
not specifically address front trunks. The agency believes that this 
is because the Panel simply did not differentiate between front and 
rear trunks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Performance Requirements

1. Releasing Only the Primary Latch
    S4.3(b) of Standard No. 401 reads:

    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 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.

    Porsche requested that the agency amend S4.3(b) to require the 
release of only the primary latching position under all conditions, 
i.e., whether the passenger car is stationary or moving at any speed. 
Porsche claimed that inadvertent openings cannot be completely 
eliminated since luggage or other items in the trunk compartment could 
trip the internal trunk release, causing the front hood to fly up and 
obstruct the driver's view. Porsche also posed the following potential 
situation:

    [A]fter the latch has been released completely from all latch 
positions, with the vehicle stationary or moving at a speed of less 
than 3 km/h, a driver could start or continue driving, although an 
entrapped child might not be able to escape. For example, while the 
vehicle is stopped at a red light, an entrapped child releases the 
internal trunk release, but might be unable to climb out. If the 
driver continued driving, after the traffic light has turned green, 
the hood would fly open and obstruct the driver's view.

    Porsche stated that requiring the release of only the primary latch 
under all conditions would eliminate the consequences of inadvertent 
openings when the vehicle is in motion while still providing fresh air, 
a way to release heat from the trunk, and a visual indication that 
something is amiss. It also would allow the trapped individual to be 
heard.
    The agency notes that Porsche raised similar issues in its petition 
for reconsideration of the October 20, 2000 final rule. In the August 
17, 2001 final rule responding to petitions for reconsideration, the 
agency stated:

    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.

    (66 FR 43113, 43117).
    However, the agency also noted that if it did not require the 
interior trunk release to completely release the trunk lid under at 
least some circumstances, victims of intentional entrapment would not 
be able to escape. The agency stated, ``Such victims would not be able 
to completely release the trunk lid and escape, at least not while the 
passenger car was in motion.'' (66 FR 43113, 43117). To address this, 
the agency required that the trunk lid open completely when the 
passenger car is stationary or moving at a speed (less than 3 km/h) at 
which a driver could safely stop if the front trunk lid opened and 
obstructed his or her view.
    The agency believes that the reasons for requiring the interior 
trunk release to release the front trunk lid from all latching 
positions when the passenger car is stationary or moving at a speed of 
less than 3 km/h remain valid. While the situations described by 
Porsche may be possible, the agency believes that they are extremely 
unlikely. Accordingly, the agency is denying Porsche's request to amend 
S4.3 to require the interior release in front trunks to release only 
the primary latch, regardless of whether the vehicle is stationary or 
moving at any speed.
2. Speed Threshold and Tolerance
    As noted above, S4.3(b) of Standard No. 401 requires the internal 
trunk release in passenger cars that have a front trunk with a front-
opening lid to release only the primary latching position or latch 
system \2\ when the passenger car is moving at a speed of 3 km/h or 
greater. When the passenger car is moving at speeds less than 3 km/h, 
or is stationary, the internal trunk release must release all of the 
latching positions or latch systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ S4.2 of Standard No. 113, Hood Latch System requires front 
opening hoods to be provided with a ``second latch position'' or a 
``second hood latch system.'' Thus, in this final rule, the agency 
will refer to both secondary latching positions and secondary latch 
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ferrari claimed that this requirement is not technically feasible. 
Ferrari stated, ``Every physical system has a series of tolerances that 
define a ``gray zone'' for which the system status cannot reliably be 
predicted.'' Ferrari requested that NHTSA add a tolerance (e.g., 
 2 km/h) to the speed requirement in S4.3(b).
    Ferrari also claimed that the 3 km/h speed threshold was too low 
and requested that it be increased to 5 km/h.
    In setting the speed threshold at 3 km/h, NHTSA accepted Porsche's 
comment in its petition for reconsideration of the October 20, 2000 
final rule that it currently deactivates the standard electromechanical 
hood release on its passenger cars when they have obtained a speed of 5 
km/h  2 km/h. The agency selected 3 km/h as the low end of 
the speed range provided by Porsche. However, NHTSA realizes that this 
may be difficult to achieve. The agency also believes that there are no 
safety implications to raising the speed threshold to 5 km/h. Thus, to 
ease the engineering burden on manufacturers, the agency is granting 
Ferrari's request to raise the speed threshold to 5 km/h.
    Accordingly, the agency is revising S4.3(b) to read as follows:

    (1) For passenger cars with a front trunk compartment that has a 
front opening trunk lid required to have a secondary latching 
position or latch system, actuation of the release mechanism 
required by paragraph S4.1 of this standard must result in the 
following:
    (i) When the passenger car is stationary, the release mechanism 
must release the trunk lid from all latching positions or latch 
systems;
    (ii) When the passenger car is moving forward at a speed less 
than 5 km/h, the release mechanism must release the trunk lid from 
the primary latching position or latch system, and may release the 
trunk lid from all latching positions or latch systems;
    (iii) When the passenger car is moving forward at a speed of 5 
km/h or greater, the release mechanism must release the trunk lid 
from the primary latching position or latch system, but must not 
release the trunk lid from the secondary latching position or latch 
system.
    (2) The passenger cars described in paragraph S4.3(b)(1) are 
excluded from the

[[Page 19521]]

requirements of this standard until September 1, 2002.

    Thus, when a passenger car with a front trunk is stationary, the 
interior trunk release must completely release the trunk lid from all 
latching positions or latch systems. When the passenger car is moving 
forward at a speed less than 5 km/h, the interior trunk release must 
release the primary latching position or latch system, and may release 
all latching positions or latch systems. When the passenger car is 
moving forward at a speed of 5 km/h or greater, the interior trunk 
release must release only the primary latching position or latch 
system. This is equivalent to a 5 km/h tolerance.
3. Irrevocable Election
    Standard No. 401 permits a manufacturer to comply by means of 
either a manual or automatic interior trunk release.\3\ Since the 
requirements for manual and automatic releases are different, S4.1 of 
the standard requires a manufacturer to select which type of release it 
intends to use for certification purposes. The selection with respect 
to any particular vehicle may not later be changed. Similar irrevocable 
election requirements appear in other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards. S4.1 reads as follows:

    \3\ An automatic trunk release detects the presence of a person 
in the trunk and automatically releases the trunk lid.

    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.

    Ferrari requested that the agency modify the irrevocable election 
requirement to specify that a manufacturer may modify or replace the 
interior trunk release system during the production period of a model. 
Ferrari requested that the agency revise the last sentence of S4.1 to 
read: ``The manufacturer shall select the option by the time it 
certifies the vehicle.''
    NHTSA believes this change is unnecessary. The agency inserted this 
requirement after it learned that one manufacturer intended to install 
both a manual and automatic interior trunk release in some of its model 
lines. In the absence of an irrevocable election requirement, this 
could have led to enforcement problems with respect to those vehicles. 
For example, if NHTSA tested the automatic release of one of these 
vehicles, and it did not meet the requirements for an automatic 
release, the agency could consider this a noncompliance. However, the 
manufacturer could then claim that it intended its manual system to be 
its means of compliance, making it necessary for the agency to re-test 
the vehicle. To avoid these problems, the agency added the irrevocable 
selection requirement.
    NHTSA intended this requirement to apply only to vehicles with both 
a manual and automatic interior trunk release. If a vehicle is equipped 
with a manual release, the agency will test it to the requirements for 
a manual release. If it is equipped with an automatic release, the 
agency will test it to the requirements for an automatic release.
    The irrevocable election requirement was not intended to preclude 
manufacturers from modifying or replacing the interior trunk release 
system during the production period of the model. For example, if a 
manufacturer equips a certain model line with a manual interior trunk 
release, but then during the production period (or model year) of that 
model line develops a compliant automatic release and decides to equip 
that model line with it for the rest of that production period, the 
irrevocable election requirement does not prohibit the manufacturer 
from doing so. As stated above, the agency will test the trunk release 
according to the appropriate requirements. It is only when a vehicle is 
equipped with both a manual and automatic release that the agency will 
need to know to which requirements (manual or automatic release) the 
manufacturer has certified the vehicle.
    NHTSA believes this explanation addresses the situation raised by 
Ferrari. Accordingly, the agency believes it is unnecessary to modify 
S4.1.
4. Test Procedures
    Ferrari expressed concern about test procedures in the following 
situations:
    (1) Verifying that the interior release for a front trunk 
completely releases the lid when the vehicle is moving below the speed 
threshold. Ferrari claimed it is dangerous to use a person in such a 
situation because the person could be ejected from the trunk.
    (2) Testing a vehicle with a trunk compartment big enough for a 
three-year-old child dummy to fit inside but not big enough for an 
adult. Ferrari stated it is not possible to use children to verify that 
the trunk release complies with the standard.
    Ferrari requested that the agency issue a recommended certification 
test procedure as soon as possible.
    The agency is developing test procedures and will issue them as 
soon as possible. However, the agency notes that it is not necessary to 
place an adult inside the trunk compartment to verify that a manual 
interior trunk release functions. This can be accomplished by using a 
remote control.

C. Lead Time

    Ferrari requested that the agency grant manufacturers of passenger 
cars with a front trunk an additional three years of lead time (until 
September 1, 2004) to comply with the standard. Ferrari estimated that 
it would take that long to design, develop, and test a release that 
would meet the requirements of the standard.
    NHTSA does not believe that designing an interior trunk release 
capable of meeting the requirements of Standard No. 401 as revised 
herein poses any particular challenges. The agency notes that Porsche 
has already developed a system that deactivates the standard 
electromechanical hood release on its passenger cars when they have 
obtained a speed of 5 km/h  2 km/h. The agency believes 
that this system can readily be modified to work with an interior trunk 
release so that it will meet the requirements of the standard. 
Moreover, the agency has already granted manufacturers of passenger 
cars with a front trunk an additional year of lead time to meet the 
requirements of the standard. Further, Porsche, in its petition for 
reconsideration of the August 17, 2001 final rule, did not request any 
additional lead time. Accordingly, the agency is denying Ferrari's 
request for an additional three years of lead time.

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 Executive 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

[[Page 19522]]

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. It imposes no additional 
requirements or burdens on manufacturers. This document simply raises 
the speed threshold at which the interior trunk release in a vehicle 
equipped with a front-opening front trunk must release only the primary 
latch from 3 km/h to 5 km/h. Thus, a full regulatory evaluation is not 
warranted.

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, this final rule imposes no additional requirements 
or burdens on manufacturers. In the August 17, 2001 final rule 
responding to petitions for reconsideration, the agency imposed an 
additional requirement on manufacturers of passenger cars with front 
trunks. The agency stated that it was aware of only one manufacturer of 
such passenger cars, Porsche, and that Porsche did not qualify as a 
small entity. Thus, the agency concluded that the final rule would not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    In its petition for reconsideration of the August 17, 2001 final 
rule, Ferrari noted that other manufacturers (Ferrari, Lamborghini, and 
Lotus) manufacture passenger cars with front trunks. Ferrari stated, 
``Consequently we cannot agree with your conclusion that the revised 
final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number 
of small entities.''
    The agency notes that these manufacturers do not qualify as small 
businesses under the Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 
CFR part 121. Moreover, even if these manufacturers did qualify as 
small businesses, for purposes of this analysis, three manufacturers 
would not constitute a substantial number.
    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.'' The Executive Order defines ``policies that 
have federalism implications'' 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 
the Executive Order, 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 that has 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.
    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action in accordance with the 
principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132. The agency 
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 that 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.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not have any requirements that are considered to be 
information collection requirements as defined by the 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) directs NHTSA to use voluntary consensus standards 
in its 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 
adapted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of 
Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs NHTSA to provide 
Congress, through the OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to 
use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    There are no applicable voluntary consensus standards available at 
this time. NHTSA will consider any such standards if they become 
available.

[[Page 19523]]

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 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, this final rule does not impose any additional 
burdens or requirements. 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 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 part 571 as 
follows:

PART 571--[AMENDED]

    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. In Section 571.401, S4.3 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 571.401  Standard No. 401; Interior trunk release.

    S4.3 * * *
    (b)(1) For passenger cars with a front trunk compartment that has a 
front opening trunk lid required to have a secondary latching position 
or latch system, actuation of the release mechanism required by 
paragraph S4.1 of this standard must result in the following:
    (i) When the passenger car is stationary, the release mechanism 
must release the trunk lid from all latching positions or latch 
systems;
    (ii) When the passenger car is moving forward at a speed less than 
5 km/h, the release mechanism must release the trunk lid from the 
primary latching position or latch system, and may release the trunk 
lid from all latching positions or latch systems;
    (iii) When the passenger car is moving forward at a speed of 5 km/h 
or greater, the release mechanism must release the trunk lid from the 
primary latching position or latch system, but must not release the 
trunk lid from the secondary latching position or latch system.
    (2) The passenger cars described in paragraph S4.3(b)(1) are 
excluded from the requirements of this standard until September 1, 
2002.

    Issued: April 16, 2002.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 02-9677 Filed 4-19-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P