[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 242 (Friday, December 17, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70672-70678]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-32752]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA 99-5063; Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AH 83
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Interior Trunk Releases
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are proposing to require that all new vehicles with trunks
come equipped with a release latch inside the trunk compartment
beginning January 1, 2001. During the summer of 1998, eleven children
died when they inadvertently trapped themselves in the trunk of a car.
This proposal is intended to give children and others who find
themselves trapped inside a car trunk a chance to get out of the trunk
alive.
DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that
Docket Management receives them not later than February 15, 2000.
ADDRESSES: You should mention the docket number of this document in
your comments and submit your comments in writing to: Docket
Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590.
You may call Docket Management at 202-366-9324. You may visit the
Docket from 10:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen R. Kratzke, Director, Office
of Crash Avoidance Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington
DC 20590. Mr. Kratzke's telephone number is (202) 366-4931 and his
facsimile number is (202) 366-4329.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Previous Agency Looks at Trunk Entrapment
The issue of motor vehicle trunk entrapment was initially raised in
May of 1984 when NHTSA was petitioned by Mr. William Proehl to require
that every new car be equipped with a trunk release lever that can be
easily operated from inside a vehicle's trunk. The petitioner listed
various possible circumstances of accidental and intentional entrapment
in the trunk of a vehicle. The petitioner stated that persons such as
alarm and stereo installers, mechanics, playful children, pranksters,
and crime victims may be trapped in the trunk. The petitioner also
believed that an elderly person might fall into the trunk and thereby
become entrapped. Mr. Proehl asked NHTSA to require an inside trunk
release on all new cars to facilitate the release of these victims.
After reviewing the petition and the available information in this
area, NHTSA published a notice of denial for rulemaking which concluded
that the likelihood of an internal trunk lever ever being used was
remote (49 FR 47277; December 3, 1984). NHTSA stated in 1984 that it
was not aware of any data indicating that there is much likelihood of
occurrence of unintentional entrapment in a vehicle's trunk. NHTSA's
rationale for its conclusion stated that trunk lids are spring-loaded
in the open position and, therefore, not likely to close by themselves
with someone inside. Because the lids are spring loaded, it is
difficult to close the trunk from any position except standing behind
the vehicle and pushing down on the outer surface of the trunk lid.
From that position, a person has a full view of the trunk interior. The
agency stated that it believed it would be extremely unlikely that a
person would accidentally close the lid with someone inside. Concerning
an elderly person falling into the trunk, the petitioner suggested that
entrapment could occur if snow on the trunk closed
[[Page 70673]]
the lid when the person fell. It was unclear to NHTSA how the trunk
would entrap the person in this circumstance, since it is unlikely that
the individual would fall in such a way that more than his or her upper
torso is inside the trunk. Again, in this situation, NHTSA stated its
belief that an internal trunk release lever would not likely need to be
used.
The 1984 notice stated that NHTSA was aware that victims of crime
or pranks are, on occasion, purposely locked in the trunk of a vehicle.
However, the petitioner did not provide any data supporting the
benefits of an internal release mechanism in these circumstances. The
agency did not and still does not know, for example, how often a victim
of a crime or prank who is purposely locked in a vehicle's trunk might
also be secured so that an internal release mechanism could not be
operated.
Between May 1984 and July 1998, NHTSA received approximately two
dozen letters expressing concern about trunk entrapments. In no case
was data provided to the agency about the size of this safety problem.
Events of the Summer of 1998
In June 1998, the U.S. Congress directed NHTSA to conduct a study
of the benefits to the public of a regulation to require the
installation in a motor vehicle of an interior device to release the
trunk lid. NHTSA was required to submit a report on the results of the
study to Congress by December 1999. Additionally, during a three-week
period between July and August of 1998, eleven children died in three
separate incidents when they locked themselves in the trunk of an
automobile. These events obliged NHTSA to take another look at the
problem of trunk entrapments.
The Work of the Expert Panel on Trunk Entrapment
In September 1998, NHTSA began to gather all available information
on the issue of trunk entrapments, which is not a well defined problem.
In general, it appears that the victims of trunk entrapment include two
distinct categories: people who are intentionally locked in a motor
vehicle trunk by criminals and people, nearly always children, who
inadvertently lock themselves in the trunk. The problem solution
requires some understanding of criminal and child behavior, the human
factors problem of designing a mechanism that children and others will
be able to operate quickly when frightened and in the dark, and other
issues including location and possible power requirements. Considering
the broad array of issues, NHTSA decided that instead of having the
government develop a solution on its own, a more effective way of
addressing and understanding the issue would be to bring business,
government and civic leaders, medical and engineering researchers and a
broad coalition of concerned organizations together to work to prevent
trunk entrapments. To accomplish this, NHTSA decided to convene an
independent panel of experts.
In November 1998, NHTSA asked Ms. Heather Paul of the National Safe
Kids Campaign to chair an Expert Panel for the purpose of developing
recommendations and strategies by mid-1999 for addressing the issue of
deaths and injuries resulting from motor vehicle trunk entrapment. The
Expert Panel on Trunk Entrapment consisted of representatives from
various industries, including vehicle manufacturers, law enforcement
groups, experts in child psychology and behavior, child safety
advocates, the medical community, other Federal government agencies,
and other interested parties.
This Expert Panel met three times in Washington, DC, in January,
March, and May 1999. At the first meeting, NHTSA presented an overview
of the available data on the size of the safety problem. NHTSA's report
is available in the public docket in both its original and revised form
(Docket No. NHTSA 1999-5063-2 and 5063-3, respectively). The report
concluded that existing Federal databases had very little information
on the problem of trunk entrapment, and described our search through
data collected by this agency, as well as the Consumer Product Safety
Commission, the National Center for Health Statistics, and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation. The available data indicated there have been
21 deaths in 11 incidents of inadvertent trunk entrapment from 1987 to
1999.
Also at the first meeting, Janette Fennell of Trunk Releases
Urgently Needed Coalition (TRUNC), a non-profit group dedicated to
improving trunk safety, made a presentation suggesting that trunk
entrapments happen with greater regularity than is generally believed.
Ms. Fennell said that, as of January 1999, she had gathered anecdotal
evidence and media reports of more than 900 cases of trunk entrapment.
Ms. Fennell's presentation was followed by a presentation by Lenore
Terr, a child psychologist. Ms. Terr explained that evidence suggests
that small children basically ``shut down'' and passively wait for
rescue in situations like trunk entrapment. Hence, she recommended that
any trunk release must be very simple or it will not help small
children.
The next presentation at the first meeting was by Mr. Robert Lange
of General Motors Corporation (GM). Mr. Lange presented GM's research
and trunk safety retrofit solution. GM's interior release mechanism is
a handle that is lighted for 30 minutes after the trunk is closed. GM's
research found that most 3 to 6-year old children could successfully
use this handle. The success rate increased dramatically as children
got older. However, Mr. Lange emphasized that neither GM's handle nor
any other approach will allow all 3 to 6-year old children to get out
of a trunk alive. That is why, according to Mr. Lange, GM's retrofit
switch requires a deliberate movement of a switch to latch the trunk
closed. GM believes this will prevent a significant portion of
inadvertent trunk entrapments.
The final presentation at the first meeting was by Wayne Lord, of
the FBI's National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime. Mr. Lord
said we learn about criminals by studying their reactions to certain
situations or stimuli. These reactions allow one to predict likely
future behavior when confronted with those situations or stimuli. There
are currently no studies of which Mr. Lord is aware that involve the
behavior of criminals who knew there was a trunk release inside the
trunk. Hence, there is no scientific basis for predictions about what
criminals will do if there are inside trunk releases (either harm or
immobilize victims or ignore or forget about the trunk release). Any
prediction as to which of these two courses criminals will take is just
a guess, and the FBI will not do that.
At the second meeting of the Expert Panel on March 9, 1999, the
first presentation was by Dr. Jonathan Arden, a forensic pathologist
and the Medical Examiner for the District of Columbia. Dr. Arden
provided a detailed medical description of asphyxiation and
hyperthermia, the diagnoses on the death certificates of the children
who died in the trunks of cars. Dr. Arden suggested the preferred
approach would be to get the children out of the trunk as quickly as
possible. The other presentation at the second meeting was by Lois
Fingerhut of the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), who gave
information about the pilot program NHTSA and NCHS have undertaken to
look at non-crash deaths in vehicles. Ms. Fingerhut gave out a copy of
a standard death certificate and explained how and where the
information on the cause of death is coded.
[[Page 70674]]
The Expert Panel spent a significant part of the second meeting
discussing possible paths for getting inside trunk releases into
vehicles. The options considered were:
1. Rely on voluntary actions by manufacturers to install inside
trunk releases. The potential benefits identified with this path were
that it allows maximum freedom to develop and install a variety of
different solutions without imposing any unintended regulatory
obstacles. The potential negative implications of this path were that
not all manufacturers would necessarily install inside trunk releases
on all their vehicles.
2. NHTSA Establishes a Requirement for Vehicles to be Equipped with
Inside Trunk Releases without any Performance Requirements. The
potential benefit of this path is that it allows manufacturers maximum
freedom to experiment with different designs of inside trunk releases,
while assuring that all vehicles with trunks will have an inside trunk
release. The potential negative implications of this path were that,
absent performance requirements, the goals of the requirement might not
be fulfilled. Manufacturers might choose ineffective inside trunk
releases that would fully comply with such a standard.
3. NHTSA Establishes a Detailed Performance Requirement for Inside
Trunk Releases. The potential benefit of this path is that it
establishes clear guidance as to what performance is expected from
inside trunk releases. The potential negative of this path is the
amount of time it would take to conduct research to determine what
performance requirements should be established. In addition, detailed
performance requirements can pose obstacles to new technologies not
available at the time the performance requirements are established.
The Expert Panel did not decide on any one of these three options
at its second meeting, but there was significant discussion of each of
these courses of action. The Panel decided to wait to make any
recommendation as to the approach it would recommend.
At the third meeting of the Expert Panel on May 3, 1999, Mr.
Michael Stando of Ford Motor Company gave a presentation about the
inside trunk release that will be original equipment on ALL of its
model year 2000 cars. This decision by Ford affects 1.8 million cars
and three latch suppliers. Mr. Stando said that Ford generated 22
different potential approaches. Ford consulted a psychologist
specializing in child behavior. The psychologist said that the most
natural response for children 18 months to 4 years old to an object
that interests them is to grasp the object and pull it toward
themselves, to put it in their mouth if they are younger and to
visually examine it more closely if they are older. Mr. Stando stated
that Ford human factors specialists then tested their symbol and
symbol/handle recognition on 27 children between the ages of three and
five. 18 of the 27 children achieved at least partial symbol/handle
recognition. Ford's inside trunk release is cable-operated with a T-
shaped handle. The handle is sized for a child's hand and made of
polypropylene, like many food containers. Mr. Stando said that the
handle has a phosphorescent ``glow-in-the-dark'' additive, so it needs
no electrical power. The handle is quick-charging--it needs only 10
seconds of garage light to glow visibly inside the closed trunk. The
glow was said to be very long-lasting (up to 8 hours when fully
charged). The handle operates with a pull motion. It is low effort and
requires only one inch of travel, factors designed to make the trunk
release system child-friendly, according to Mr. Stando. In addition,
this mechanism can be retrofitted on Ford cars from one to five model
years back. Mr. Stando announced that Ford will make this release
available as a retrofit option for these older vehicles.
As a result of the information and discussions at these three
meetings, the Expert Panel announced a series of recommendations on
June 8, 1999. One of these recommendations was that ``[a]ll automobile
manufacturers should design and install trunk safety features,
including internal trunk release mechanisms, into all new vehicles by
January 1, 2001.'' Another recommendation was that NHTSA ``should issue
a standard requiring vehicles to be equipped with internal trunk
release mechanisms. The standard should hold the automobile industry
accountable for taking action, yet allow manufacturers the freedom to
determine optimal design solutions. Manufacturers are urged to pursue
voluntary action rather than waiting for NHTSA's rulemaking.''
Interested people can read all of the Expert Panel's recommendations in
the docket at NHTSA-99-5063-4. This proposal follows up on those
recommendations.
NHTSA's Proposal for Original Equipment Inside Trunk Releases
Safety Need and Efficacy of Countermeasures
In the agency's previous look at inside trunk releases in 1984, we
stated that we knew of no data about the size of the safety problem or
the likely effectiveness of an internal trunk release at addressing
that problem. We now have a report by the Centers for Disease Control
in December 1998 that documented 19 cases of children ages 6 or younger
that died in car trunks from 1987 to 1998. The cause of death in all
cases was either hyperthermia (``heat stroke'') or hyperthermia plus
asphyxiation.
We acknowledge that this problem is not the largest motor vehicle
safety issue, not even for children ages 6 or younger. However, we do
not believe that just because a problem is relatively small, NHTSA
should do nothing to address it. The entire subject of preventing
injury and death from motor vehicles in something other than on-road
crashes is one that is often given short shrift because it is so hard
to document the size of the problem. There are no reliable Federal data
sources that track non-crash injuries. Nevertheless, NHTSA is
specifically charged by law with protecting the public against
unreasonable risks in non-crash situations, as well as crash
situations. Since more than 40,000 people die each year from motor
vehicle crashes, we as an agency have rightly focused our resources and
efforts on crash-related situations. However, if the safety risks from
a non-crash situation can be quantified, as this has been by the
Centers for Disease Control report and the work of the Expert Panel,
NHTSA must then consider whether those safety risks can be effectively
addressed by a means whose costs are reasonably related to the expected
benefits.
With respect to the likely efficacy of internal trunk releases, we
now have data from General Motors and Ford that indicates many, but not
all, children from ages three to six will be able to use those
manufacturers' designs for internal trunk releases to escape from
locked trunks. Ford is voluntarily equipping all of its model year 2000
vehicles that have trunks with these internal trunk releases. We
interpret this as a conclusion by that company that the cost of its
internal trunk release design is reasonable in relation to the safety
problem.
Based on this information on the size of the problem and the
efficacy of likely countermeasures, which has become available since we
last considered mandating internal trunk releases, NHTSA now concludes
that this safety problem appears to be one that it would be appropriate
to address with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The next issue
we must address is what requirements we should propose for this new
standard.
[[Page 70675]]
Proposed Requirements
The Expert Panel spent quite a bit of time discussing how detailed
the performance requirements for interior trunk releases should be. The
agency has a variety of approaches for dealing with potential safety
features. At one end of the spectrum, some safety features are
installed voluntarily by manufacturers with no Federal motor vehicle
safety standard requirement to do so. One current example of this is
Antilock Brake Systems on passenger cars and light trucks. This
voluntary approach allows manufacturers to choose whether to put the
safety feature on their vehicles and the performance characteristics of
the design of the safety feature they will install. One advantage of
this approach is it gets the safety feature on vehicles more quickly,
since there is no need to wait for action by NHTSA. However, a
substantial disadvantage of this approach is that the safety feature is
not usually installed on every vehicle.
At the other end of the spectrum is when NHTSA requires a safety
feature by issuing a Federal motor vehicle safety standard that
requires the equipment and specifies necessary performance levels for
the equipment. One current example of this is frontal air bags in cars
and light trucks. This approach assures that the safety feature will be
installed on every new car and light truck and that the performance
will achieve levels that are determined to be the minimum acceptable
for protection of the public. However, this approach takes the most
time to get implemented. It is especially difficult in an area like
interior trunk releases, where there is little existing research. NHTSA
would have to first conduct its own research in this area. This would
likely take two years or more. We would then have to initiate the
rulemaking process. Our rulemaking on average takes 18 to 24 months to
produce a final rule. We would have to allow some leadtime for
manufacturers to install internal trunk releases in their vehicles.
Hence, a detailed performance standard would take four to five years to
get internal trunk releases in vehicles.
The question then is whether we can find some middle ground between
allowing manufacturers to decide if and when they will install interior
trunk releases in their vehicles and waiting five years for a detailed
performance standard. The Expert Panel believed it found such a middle
ground and recommended that NHTSA adopt a general equipment requirement
for interior trunk releases, without specifying detailed performance
requirements. This approach ensures that every new car and light truck
will be equipped with an interior trunk release, while allowing vehicle
manufacturers substantial flexibility to determine the optimal
solutions for their vehicles.
NHTSA has successfully used this approach in Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard No. 113, Hood Latch System (49 CFR Sec. 571.113). That
standard simply requires that a front opening hood must have a second
latch position. No details of the latch's performance are specified.
This simple standard obliged manufacturers to put a second latch
position on the hoods of all their vehicles. If needed, the agency
could have revisited this standard to add more detailed performance
requirements. However, the safety problem of hoods flying open while
the vehicle was in motion and obstructing the driver's vision was
effectively addressed by this general equipment requirement.
We agree with the Expert Panel's recommendation. With respect to
interior trunk releases, NHTSA wants to allow manufacturers the freedom
to determine optimal design solutions for their vehicles, while
assuring the public that all new vehicles with trunks will have an
interior trunk release as soon as practicable. A general equipment
standard achieves this.
However, this proposed standard includes an additional requirement
for interior trunk releases. The internal trunk release must include a
feature that allows it to be easily seen inside the closed trunk. It is
very dark inside a closed trunk. One cannot expect victims of trunk
entrapment, especially small children, to grope around in hopes of
locating the internal trunk release. GM will address this issue by
lighting its release handle, while Ford has chosen a phosphorescent
release mechanism. Either of these approaches is acceptable, as are any
other approaches that assure victims trapped inside a trunk will be
able to quickly locate the release mechanism.
Although this proposed standard does not explicitly require it,
NHTSA notes that the Expert Panel recommended that manufacturers should
base their designs for internal trunk releases upon the cognitive and
physical abilities of young children. In other words, the Expert Panel
was advising other manufacturers to do what General Motors and Ford
have done--take the time to understand the abilities of young children
and tailor the designs to those abilities. The Expert Panel reasoned
that an internal trunk release mechanism that is designed to be
operated by small children will also work well for adults. The opposite
would not necessarily be true--that is, an internal trunk release
mechanism designed to be operated by adults might not work for small
children.
Scope of Proposal
This proposal would apply to all new vehicles with ``trunk lids.''
NHTSA has long defined a ``trunk lid'' in Standard No. 206 as ``a
movable body panel that provides access from outside the vehicle to a
space wholly partitioned from the occupant compartment by a permanently
attached partition or a fixed or fold-down seat back.'' We are now
proposing that all vehicles with ``trunk lids'' must have a release
inside the trunk compartment.
The effect of this definition is that the requirement for an
internal release would not apply to vehicles that do not typically have
trunk lids, like hatchback cars, station wagons, pickup trucks, sport
utility vehicles, and vans. Although these vehicles sometimes have a
package shelf behind the rear seat that covers a concealed cargo area,
the package shelf is not fixed. If anyone were trapped in that area,
they could readily lift the package shelf and escape.
Commenters are asked to specifically address the proposed
definition for a trunk lid and state whether they believe it is
acceptable for the purposes of this new standard. If the commenter
believes the proposed definition is unclear in some cases, we ask the
commenter to provide specific examples of vehicles where they are
unsure whether there is a trunk lid.
Consideration of Exclusions for Small Trunks or Vehicles Made by Small
Manufacturers
During the Expert Panel meetings, an issue was raised as to whether
vehicles with small trunks should be excluded from the requirement for
an interior trunk release. The reason suggested was that some trunks
are so small it would be physically impossible for a person to fit
inside them. NHTSA has decided not to propose such an exemption. While
there certainly are vehicles, especially two-seaters and sports cars,
with very small trunks, the agency is not aware of any trunk that is so
small a 3-year-old child could not get inside. However, the agency
specifically asks commenters to address this tentative conclusion. If
there are vehicle trunks that are so small even a 3-year-old child
could not fit inside, NHTSA asks the commenter to give the dimensions
of the trunk compartment and a suggested method for measuring a trunk
compartment to see if it is so small the commenter believes it should
be excluded from the
[[Page 70676]]
internal trunk release requirement. In formulating the final rule on
this subject, NHTSA will consider the information in the comments and
elsewhere as we re-examine our tentative decision to make even small
trunks subject to this internal release requirement.
A variant on this request was that vehicles made by small
manufacturers, i.e., a company that makes no more than a few thousand
vehicles each year, be excluded from the requirement for an internal
trunk release. NHTSA understands that these small manufacturers have
much lesser resources than manufacturers like Ford or General Motors.
In recognition of this, we have occasionally allowed small
manufacturers more time to comply with requirements that require
intensive engineering than is allowed for larger manufacturers.
However, we do not believe it is necessary or appropriate to do that
with respect to internal trunk releases. The agency does not believe
that designing and installing an internal trunk release presents the
same kind of engineering challenge that advanced occupant protection
systems do. The approaches taken by Ford and General Motors for
internal trunk releases are publicly available. Thus, we are not
proposing to exclude low volume manufacturers from the internal trunk
release standard.
Leadtime
Again, all vehicle manufacturers, not just low volume ones, can
study the approaches Ford and General Motors have taken for internal
trunk releases. Hence, no lengthy leadtime appears necessary before
implementing a requirement for internal trunk releases.
The Expert Panel was considering a recommendation that all
manufacturers should design and install trunk safety features,
including internal trunk release mechanisms, into all new vehicles by
September 1, 2000, which would coincide with the start of the 2001
model year. However, representatives of vehicle manufacturers stated
that, while they could meet that date, a few more months would allow
them to ensure their internal trunk release mechanisms were more
effective. Those representatives asked that the date be postponed four
months, to January 1, 2001, and the Expert Panel adopted the January 1,
2001 date in its final recommendations. We are proposing the same
January 1, 2001 date in this notice.
Organization Within Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
NHTSA has typically organized its safety standards so that the 100
series of standards represents the crash avoidance standards (those
designed to reduce the likelihood of being in a crash), the 200 series
of standards represents the crashworthiness standards (those designed
to protect the occupant in the event of a crash), and the 300 series of
standards represents the post-crash fire standards (those designed to
minimize the likelihood of a fire after a crash). A standard for an
internal trunk release doesn't fit into any of these categories because
there is no crash associated with the problem of becoming trapped
inside a locked trunk. Therefore, we are proposing a new series of
standards, the 400 series, that will be dedicated to motor vehicle
injury prevention in non-crash events. This standard for internal trunk
releases is proposed to be Standard No. 401.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
a. Executive Order 12866 (Federal Regulation) and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
NHTSA has examined the impact of this proposed rulemaking action
and determined that it is not significant within the meaning of
Executive Order 12866 and not significant within the meaning of the
Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures.
Information indicates that an approach to internal trunk releases such
as Ford has chosen can be accomplished for about $2.00 per vehicle.
There are approximately 7 million new vehicles with trunks sold each
year in the United States. Thus, if this proposal were adopted as a
final rule, we would anticipate total costs of about $14 million, well
under the $100 million level needed to classify a rule as major.
Accordingly, the agency has not prepared a full preliminary regulatory
evaluation for this proposal.
b. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-354), as
amended, requires agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their
proposed and final rules on small businesses, small organizations and
small governmental jurisdictions. The only parties affected by this
proposal will be manufacturers of motor vehicles with trunks. To the
extent that some of those parties qualify as small businesses, the
costs associated with this proposal are so minor that no significant
impacts on small businesses will result if this proposal were adopted
as a final rule.
c. Executive Order 12612
This proposal has been analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and the agency has
determined that this proposal does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
d. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 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 proposal would not have any such
impacts on those parties. As noted above, the agency expects the costs
associated with this proposal to be about $2.00 per car, or about $14
million in the aggregate.
e. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
This proposal is consistent with the National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-113). Under the Act, ``all
Federal agencies and departments shall use technical standards that are
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using
such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or
activities determined by the agencies and departments.'' There are no
such standards available at this time. However, one of the Expert
Panel's recommendations was that the Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE) should begin work to develop a recommended practice for the
design and performance of trunk safety features, including internal
trunk release mechanisms. NHTSA will consider any such SAE recommended
practice when it becomes available.
f. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this proposed rulemaking action for the purposes
of the National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined
that adoption of this proposal in a final rule of this action would not
have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
g. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
This proposal does not have any retroactive effect. Under section
49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety
[[Page 70677]]
standard applicable to the same aspect of performance which is not
identical to the Federal standard, except to the extent that the state
requirement imposes a higher level of performance and applies only to
vehicles procured for the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a
procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending or
revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section does not
require submission of a petition for reconsideration or other
administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court.
h. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposal 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.
Submission of Comments
How Can I Influence NHTSA's Thinking on This Document?
In developing this document, we tried to address the concerns of
all our stakeholders. Your comments will help us improve this rule. We
invite you to provide different views on options we propose, new
approaches we have not considered, new data, how this document may
affect you, or other relevant information. We welcome your views on all
aspects of this document. Your comments will be most effective if you
follow the suggestions below:
Explain your views and reasoning as clearly as possible.
Provide solid technical and cost data to support your
views.
If you estimate potential costs, explain how you arrived
at the estimate.
Tell us which parts of this document you support, as well
as those with which you disagree.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
Offer specific alternatives.
Refer your comments to specific sections of this document,
such as the units or page numbers of the preamble, or the regulatory
sections.
Be sure to include the name, date, and docket number with
your comments.
How do I Prepare and Submit Comments?
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21).
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
Please submit two copies of your comments, including the
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under
ADDRESSES.
Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by
logging onto the Dockets Management System website at http://
dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to obtain
instructions for filing the document electronically.
How can I be Sure That my Comments Were Received?
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.
How do I Submit Confidential Business Information?
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential
business information regulation. (49 CFR Part 512.)
Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?
We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider it in
developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider
that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.
How can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?
You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are
indicated above in the same location.
You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments
on the Internet, take the following steps:
(1) Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
(2) On that page, click on ``search.''
(3) On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the
four-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document.
Example: If the docket number were ``NHTSA-1998-1234,'' you would type
``1234.'' After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
(4) On the next page, which contains docket summary information for
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may
download the comments. Although the comments are imaged documents,
instead of word processing documents, the ``pdf'' versions of the
documents are word searchable.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1,
1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language.
Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration
of the following questions:
Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is
not clear?
Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this document.
[[Page 70678]]
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amends 49 CFR
Chapter V as set forth below.
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for Part 571 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30166 and 30177;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. A new section 571.401 would be added to Part 571, to read as
follows:
Sec. 571.401 Standard No. 401; Internal trunk release.
S1. Purpose and scope. This standard establishes the requirement
for providing a release mechanism inside the trunk compartment of a
motor vehicle, so that people trapped inside the trunk will be able to
unlatch the trunk.
S2. Application. This standard applies to passenger cars,
multipurpose passenger vehicles, buses, and trucks that have a trunk
lid.
S3. Definitions. Trunk lid means a movable body panel that provides
access from outside the vehicle to a space wholly partitioned from the
occupant compartment by a permanently attached partition or a fixed or
fold-down seat back.
S4. Requirements. Each motor vehicle that has a trunk lid shall
have a release mechanism inside the trunk compartment that unlatches
the trunk lid. This internal trunk release must include a feature, like
lighting or phosphorescence, that allows it to be easily seen inside
the closed trunk.
Issued on December 13, 1999.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Acting Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 99-32752 Filed 12-14-99; 3:51 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
