[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 190 (Friday, October 1, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58843-58855]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-21976]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2004-19209]
RIN 2127-AJ18
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Platform Lifts for Motor
Vehicles, Platform Lift Installations in Motor Vehicles
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document responds to petitions for reconsideration of the
December 2002 final rule that established two new Federal motor vehicle
safety standards, one for platform lifts and one for vehicles equipped
with such lifts. The purpose of these standards is to prevent injuries
and fatalities during lift operation. The agency received several
petitions for reconsideration of the December 2002 final rule from
platform lift manufacturers, vehicle manufacturers, and a
transportation safety research organization. In response to these
petitions, the agency is clarifying the applicability of the standards.
This document also amends the definitions of certain operational
functions, the requirements for lift lighting on public lifts, the
interlock requirements, compliance procedures for lifts that manually
deploy/stow, the environmental resistance requirements, the edge guard
requirements, the wheelchair test device specifications, and the
location requirements for public lift controls.
DATES: Effective Dates: The amendments in this rule are effective
December 27, 2004.
Petitions: Petitions for reconsideration must be received by
November 15, 2004, and should refer to this docket and the notice
number of this document and be submitted to: Administrator, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact
William Evans, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, at (202) 366-2272.
For legal issues, you may contact Christopher Calamita, Office of
Chief Counsel, at (202) 366-2992, and fax them at (202) 366-3820.
You may send mail to these officials at the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC
20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
A. Special Purpose Lifts
B. Definitions of ``Deploy'' and ``Stow''
C. Platform Lift Lighting on Public Use Lifts
D. Interlock Sensors
E. Lifts That Manually Stow and Deploy
F. Environmental Resistance
G. Platform Deflection
H. Edge Guards
I. Test Device
J. Control Systems
K. Minimum Load Requirements for Private Use Lifts
L. Threshold Warning Signal
M. Wheelchair Restraint Standards
N. Cost of Testing
III. Corrections
IV. Effective Date
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
I. Background
On December 27, 2002, the agency published in the Federal Register
(67 FR 79416) a final rule establishing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 403, Platform lift systems for motor vehicles, and
FMVSS No. 404, Platform lift installation on motor vehicles (final
rule), effective December 27, 2004. These two new standards provide
practicable, performance based requirements and compliance procedures
for the regulations promulgated by the DOT under the American with
Disabilities Act \1\ (ADA). FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 provide that only
lift systems that comply with objective safety requirements may be
placed in service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pub. L. 101-336, 42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq. The ADA directed
the DOT to issue regulations to implement the transportation vehicle
provisions that pertain to vehicles used by the public. Titles II
and III of the ADA set specific requirements for vehicles purchased
by municipalities for use in fixed route bus systems and vehicles
purchased by private entities for use in public transportation to
provide a level of accessibility and usability for individuals with
disabilities. 42 U.S.C. 12204.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMVSS No. 403 establishes requirements for platform lifts that are
[[Page 58844]]
designed to carry passengers who rely on wheelchairs, scooters, canes,
and other mobility aid devices in entering and exiting motor vehicles.
The standard requires that these lifts meet minimum platform dimensions
and maximum size limits for platform protrusions and gaps between the
platform and either the vehicle floor or the ground. The standard also
requires handrails, a threshold warning signal, and retaining barriers.
Performance tests are specified for wheelchair retention on the
platform, lift strength, and platform slip resistance requirements. A
set of interlocks is prescribed to prevent accidental movement of a
lift and the vehicle on which a lift is installed.
FMVSS No. 404 establishes requirements for vehicles equipped with
platform lifts. The lifts must be certified as meeting FMVSS No. 403.
The vehicle standard requires that the lifts be installed according to
the lift manufacturer's instructions and must continue to meet all of
the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 403. The standard also
required that specific information is made available to lift users.
Recognizing the different usage patterns of platform lifts on
public transit versus that of platform lifts for individual use, the
agency established separate requirements for public use lifts and
private use lifts. S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404 requires that lift-equipped
buses, school buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles other than
motor homes with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 4,536 kg
(10,000 lb) must be equipped with a lift certified to all applicable
public use lift requirements set forth in FMVSS No. 403. Since lifts on
these vehicles will generally be subject to more stress and cyclic
loads and will be used by more and varied populations, more
requirements as to platform size, control, and handrails are
appropriate.
As required by the ADA, FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 are consistent with
the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (ATBCB)
guidelines published on September 6, 1991 (56 FR 45530). In order to
provide manufacturers sufficient time to meet any new requirements
established in FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404, the agency provided a two-year
lead time. These standards will become effective December 27, 2004.
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
In response to the final rule, the agency received six petitions
for reconsideration from platform lift manufacturers, vehicle
manufacturers, and a transportation safety research organization.
Specifically, petitions were received from: Lift-U, a platform lift
manufacturer; Stewart & Stevenson, a platform lift manufacturer; Braun
Industries Incorporated (Braun), an ambulance and ``mobile intensive
care and a neo-natal land vehicles'' manufacturer; Braun Corporation
(Braun Corp), a lift and vehicle manufacturer; Mac's Lift Gate, Inc.
(Mac's Lift Gate), a manufacturer of special purpose lifts; Prevost
Car, Inc. (Prevost), an over-the-road bus manufacturer; and the
University of Pittsburgh Engineering Research Center on Wheelchair
Transportation Safety (University of Pittsburgh), a transportation
safety research organization.
The petitioners requested the agency establish an exclusion for
special purpose lifts, and amend the definitions of ``deploy'' and
``stow,'' the platform lift lighting requirements, the interlock
requirements, the fatigue endurance requirement, the environmental
resistance requirements, the platform deflection requirements, the edge
guard requirements, control system requirements, the minimum load
standard for private lifts, and the threshold warning requirements.
In response to these petitions, the agency is amending FMVSS Nos.
403 and 404 to clarify the applicability of these standards so that
they do not apply to special purpose lifts and lifts installed on
ambulances, redefine ``deploy'' and ``stow'' to be less design
restrictive, establish the lighting requirements as a vehicle
requirement; permit lift manufacturers to rely on existing vehicle
components to comply with the interlock requirements, exclude lifts
that manually deploy and stow from specified lift performance
requirements, permit a wider range of platform lift designs to comply
with environmental resistance requirements for internally stowed lifts,
provide more flexibility in the degree of platform deflection between
the unloaded platform and the vehicle floor, reduce the required
extension of continuous edge guards to inner platform edge, establish a
performance based alternative to the continuous edge guard requirement,
establish further specifications for the wheelchair test device,
clarify the term ``control system,'' provide flexibility in the
placement of the control system panel, and make several corrections to
the regulatory text adopted by the final rule. The issues raised by the
petitioners are addressed below.
A. Special Purpose Lifts
Braun and Mac's Lift Gate petitioned the agency to exclude special
purpose lifts and vehicles equipped with special purpose lifts from the
requirements of FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404, respectively. The petitioners
argued that special purpose lifts and vehicles equipped with these
lifts are used for medical transport only, such as the transport of
individuals on cots, transport incubators, and isolet carriers. Braun
and Mac's Lift Gate further argued that the size and configuration of
special purpose lift systems are designed specifically to transport
patients in cots or isolet carriers and prevent use by individuals
using mobility aids such as wheel chairs, scooters, or canes. The
petitioners stated that special purpose lifts are not intended to
accommodate individuals in wheelchairs, mobility devices or individuals
standing. In fact, the petitioners stated, the narrow width of most
special purpose lifts makes it impossible to use for wheelchairs and
mobility aids such as scooters. Therefore, the petitioners argued,
because FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 are intended to apply to lifts that
accommodate individuals using canes, walkers, wheelchairs and mobility
devices, it would be inappropriate to apply these regulations to lifts
and vehicles equipped with lifts specifically designed to accommodate
individuals for specialized medical transport.
Agency response: The agency is clarifying the applicability
sections of FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 to make it clear that these
standards do not apply to lifts installed on medical transport vehicles
for the purpose of loading and unloading cots and/or incubators, or to
those vehicles themselves. NHTSA explained in the preamble to the final
rule that its intent is to protect lift users aided by canes or
walkers, as well as lift users seated in wheelchairs, scooters and
other mobility devices in the course of ordinary transit.
FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 are not intended to apply to systems
involving specialized medical transport. Lifts used in specialized
medical transport do not present the safety concerns addressed by these
standards. The lifts described by the petitioners do not accommodate
persons in wheelchairs, scooters, or other types of mobility devices as
the platforms are generally far too narrow. Further, these specialized
lifts transport individuals lying in cots and isolet carriers, and who
generally have no control of their own mobility during transport.
Specialized medical lifts are not used in the ordinary transport of
people with disabilities. Accordingly, this document amends the
applicability sections of FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 to clarify that
special purpose lifts and the vehicles on
[[Page 58845]]
which they are installed are not regulated by these standards.
B. Definitions of ``Deploy'' and ``Stow''
Lift-U petitioned the agency for reconsideration of the definitions
of ``deploy'' and ``stow.'' In its petition, Lift-U stated that the
definition of ``deploy'' in the final rule specifies that a platform
must deploy directly to one of the two loading positions. The
petitioner explained that some lift models ``deploy'' from a stowed
position to an extended position within the range of passenger
operation instead of directly to one of the two loading positions.
Lift-U stated that under this design, the raise or lower controls must
be actuated to move the platform after it had been ``deployed'' to
allow loading from either the vehicle or ground level loading position.
Lift-U argued that the current definition of ``deploy'' would have the
effect of prohibiting this design.
Lift-U also requested that the agency amend the definition of
``stow.'' The petitioner explained that ``stow'' with respect to a lift
typically means that the devices are put away or placed in a position
maintained during normal vehicle travel. However, the ``stowed''
position of a wheelchair retention device, a bridging device, or an
inner roll stop used to allow a passenger to embark or disembark the
platform may be an intermediate or extended position beyond the
deployed position. Lift-U requested that the definition be amended to
reflect this design variation properly.
Agency response: The agency grants Lift-U's petition with respect
to the definitions of ``deploy'' and ``stow.'' While the definitions of
``deploy'' and ``stow'' in the final rule reflect a vast majority of
platform lift designs, the agency recognizes there are a variety of
active and passive lift designs in existence. For example, active
wheelchair lifts require an additional entrance for wheelchair
passengers, while passive wheelchair lifts use existing vehicle
entrances. When stowed, a passive lift provides steps for passengers.
When operational a passive lift forms a platform that lifts a
wheelchair from the ground to the level of the vehicle floor. In
recognition of existing design variations, the agency is amending these
definitions to be less design restrictive.
In a typical lift design, the platform lift is mounted upright in
the vehicle compartment. This type of lift will usually deploy directly
to the vehicle loading position because the lift is close to this
position when it deploys or unfolds. Some external lifts may deploy
directly to the ground level loading position as they are close to that
position when they deploy or unfold. However, passive lifts may deploy
to an extended position so that they may be raised or lowered to one of
the two loading positions. We see no safety problem with the any of
these deployment methods so long as the maximum deployment speed is
sufficiently slow to permit bystanders to move out of the path of a
deploying platform lift, as required under S6.2.2.2. Accordingly, we
are amending the definition of ``deploy'' in S4 of FMVSS No. 403 to
reflect lift designs that move to an intermediate position when
deployed.
To maintain consistency throughout FMVSS No. 403, the agency is
also amending the control system requirements in S6.7.2.2 to reflect
that a platform lift may deploy to an intermediate position as opposed
to deploying directly to one of the two loading positions.
The agency also agrees with Lift-U that the position of a
wheelchair retention device, bridging device, or inner roll stop during
normal vehicle travel may not be the same as the position during
passenger access to and from the platform. To reflect this design
variety, we are amending the definition of ``stow'' in S4 of FMVSS No.
403, with respect to wheelchair retention devices, bridging devices,
and inner-roll stops, to refer to the positioning during normal vehicle
travel.
C. Platform Lift Lighting on Public Use Lifts
Under the final rule, public use platform lift manufacturers must
provide lighting hardware along with detailed installation instructions
that address the mounting, powering, location and positioning of
lighting, as well as operational test procedures. The lighting
equipment and installation instructions must permit a vehicle
manufacturer to verify that, when installed according to the
instructions, the lighting will be operational and meet the lighting
requirements of FMVSS No. 403. When a lift manufacturer certifies the
lift as complying with FMVSS No. 403, it is certifying that when the
lighting equipment is installed as instructed on a vehicle for which
the lift is intended (a list of suitable vehicles appears in the
installation instructions), the lift will meet the applicable lighting
requirements.
In petitions for reconsideration, both Prevost and the Braun Corp
raised concerns regarding the lighting requirements for public use
lifts.\2\ Prevost specifically wanted to know if it is the
responsibility of the lift manufacturer to incorporate lighting for the
lift under FMVSS No. 403 or if it is the responsibility of the vehicle
manufacturer to provide lighting under FMVSS No. 404.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The final rule established stricter requirements for lifts
designed to be installed on all buses and on multi-purpose passenger
vehicles with a gross vehicle rate rating in excess of 4,536 kg to
reflect differences in use patterns. These lifts are defined as
public use lifts. We again note that the requirements of the ADA
still apply to all lifts installed on vehicles used as public
conveyances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Braun Corp stated that identical lift products may be installed
on a wide variety of vehicles. The Braun Corp claimed that although
lift manufacturers can easily provide the method of interfacing
platform lighting with the lift, they will have difficulty in
determining the amount of lighting that will be required for each lift/
vehicle application. Thus, the Braun Corp argued that the level of
lighting intensity is application specific and should be determined at
the time of lift installation. It further argued that public use
vehicle manufacturers have already accepted responsibility for
complying with the lighting requirements of 36 CFR 1192.31.\3\
Therefore, the Braun Corp argued, compliance with the lighting standard
should be the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Section 1192.31 of the ADA adopts the lighting standards
sets forth in the ATBCB's Accessibility Guidelines for
Transportation Vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency response: The agency structured the lighting requirements so
that a platform lift system would be a complete, self-contained system
ready for installation upon delivery to the vehicle manufacturer. While
FMVSS No. 403 requires a lift manufacturer to provide the hardware and
instructions necessary to install lighting in a manner that complies
with the requirements of the standard, the agency explained that FMVSS
No. 404 places the burden of complying with the lighting requirements
on the vehicle manufacturer through compliance with the installation
instructions (67 FR 79416, 79427).
The agency realizes that the vehicle manufacturers have
traditionally provided lift lighting. Additionally, public use vehicle
manufacturers already must comply with ADA lighting standards, which
require lighting on doorways, step wells, lifts and ramps. In some
cases, ADA required lighting in conjunction with other pre-existing
vehicle lighting might already meet or exceed the lighting requirements
of S6.4.11 in FMVSS No. 403. In these
[[Page 58846]]
instances, lighting provided by a lift manufacturer would be redundant
with efforts already required of vehicle manufacturers. For these
reasons, we are requiring that vehicle manufacturers comply with the
lighting requirements through vehicle lighting systems as opposed to
the installation of lighting systems provided by a lift manufacturer.
Accordingly, the lighting requirements are moved to FMVSS No. 404.
Platform lift manufacturers will now be required to place a
statement in the installation instructions stating that, ``Public use
vehicle manufacturers are responsible for complying with the lift
lighting requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 404,
Platform lift installations in motor vehicles (49 CFR 571.404).'' The
platform lift lighting requirement formerly in S6.4.11 of FMVSS No. 403
is now a motor vehicle requirement in S4.1.5 of FMVSS No. 404. As they
are already required to meet the applicable lighting requirements under
the ADA, this will not be an additional burden for the vehicle
manufacturers.
D. Interlock Sensors
In its petition for reconsideration, the Braun Corp also raised
issues regarding the interlock requirements in FMVSS No. 403. The final
rule established interlock requirements to prevent the forward or
rearward motion of a vehicle while a platform lift is deployed. The
agency determined that the compliance responsibility for the interlock
requirements should rest with the platform lift manufacturer, and that
the lift manufacturer must provide information identifying the
appropriate vehicle make/model/year for installation of a particular
lift design. Under the final rule, the lift manufacturer must certify
that the installation hardware is fully compatible with those vehicles.
In response to this requirement, the Braun Corp argued that it is
unreasonable to require a lift manufacturer to design door, brake and
transmission interlocks to fit and immobilize all makes and models of
vehicles. The Braun Corp explained that under current practice, lift
manufacturers provide generic circuitry to interface with vehicle
systems, but the design of an interlock is more appropriately the
responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer.
Agency response: We recognize that it may be difficult for lift
manufacturers to provide the vehicle parts necessary for interlocks to
work with the lift circuitry. In many cases, the vehicle sensors and
switches needed by these interlocks may already be part of existing
vehicle systems. It may be possible for existing vehicle components to
send and receive signals to and from the lift as part of the interlock
system. We do not wish to discourage the use of interlock switches and
sensors provided by vehicle manufacturers, which may provide better
reliability than hardware supplied by the platform lift manufacturers.
Accordingly, the interlock requirements of FMVSS No. 403 are
amended to permit lift manufacturers to rely on vehicle system
components. The requirements established by this rule still require
lift manufacturers to have prior knowledge of how a lift will interface
with each particular vehicle model for which the lift is intended.
However, S6.10.2 of FMVSS No. 403 is amended by this rule to relieve
lift manufacturers from the responsibility of providing the entire
interlock system. A platform lift manufacturer may provide less than a
full interlock system intended to work in conjunction with a vehicle's
existing components, as long as when the platform lift is installed
according to the installation instructions, the interlock requirements
of S6.10.2.1 through S6.10.2.7 are met.
E. Lifts that Manually Stow and Deploy
The final rule established several performance requirements in
FMVSS No. 403 that involve the stowing and deploying of lifts,
including: S6.2.2, Maximum platform velocity; S6.5.1, Fatigue
Endurance; and S6.10.2.3, which requires an interlock to prevent the
platform from stowing when occupied. Stewart & Stevenson requested
clarification as to the application of these requirements to platform
lifts that are stowed and deployed manually. With specific regard to
the fatigue endurance test procedure, Stewart & Stevenson indicated
that fatigue cycling test procedures under California Title 13,
Department of California Highway Patrol, Commercial and Technical
Services Section do not apply the stow/deploy functions if the platform
lift is designed to stow and deploy manually. Regarding the interlock
requirement, Stewart & Stevenson stated that platforms which are
manually deployed and stowed cannot be stowed when the platform is
occupied, and therefore an interlock is not necessary.
Agency response: The agency did not consider platform lifts
designed to be stowed and deployed manually. When such lifts are in the
process of stowing and deploying, the person who is manually performing
the task is in control of the platform and the lift velocity during
deployment or stowing. While being manually stowed or deployed, the
platform is supported by the operator. Further, a platform that is
stowed manually cannot by its nature be stowed until vacant.
Accordingly, the agency has decided to exclude platform lifts that
manually deploy/stow from the requirements relating to the stow and
deploy functions in S6.2.2, S6.5.1, S6.10.2.3, S6.7.2, S7.10.5, and
S7.10.6 of FMVSS No. 403.
F. Environmental Resistance
S6.3 of FMVSS No. 403 requires platform lifts to comply with
environmental resistance requirements that reflect conditions lifts may
experience during actual use. Hardware on a lift that stows inside an
occupant compartment and is protected by an electrodeposited coating of
nickel, or copper and nickel in accordance with ASTM B456-95, does not
need to meet the environmental testing requirement of S6.3. This
hardware is not subject to the environmental conditions potentially
experienced by hardware on a lift that is stowed external to the
passenger compartment.
Stewart & Stevenson objected to the use of the phrase ``occupant
compartment'' when identifying the stow location of lifts excluded from
the environmental test requirements. It claimed that some lifts stow
within other ``sealed compartments'' such as baggage compartments and
are equally protected from the elements as lifts that stow within the
occupant compartment.
Additionally, Lift-U argued that lifts and hardware made of
stainless steel as described in S5.2 of FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt
assemblies,\4\ should also be excluded from the environmental
resistance test requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ S5.2(a) of FMVSS No. 209 states that, ``The test for
corrosion resistance shall not be required for attachment hardware
made from corrosion-resistant steel containing at least 11.5 percent
chromium[.]''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency response: The agency agrees with both Stewart & Stevenson
and Lift-U. The purpose of the environmental resistance requirement is
to test the endurance of lifts and lift components when exposed to the
elements. Less stringent requirements should apply to a lift that is
stowed either in the occupant compartment or some other equivalent
compartment. In both instances, the lift is protected against the
exposure experienced by a lift that is stowed externally. Accordingly,
we are amending S6.3 of FMVSS No. 403 to include lifts that stow
internal to a sealed compartment that provides protection from the
environment in the category of ``internal lifts.'' For internal lifts,
only the attachment hardware is tested.
[[Page 58847]]
Further, NHTSA has concluded that stainless steel (containing at
minimum 11.5 percent chromium by weight) should be added to the list of
materials that exclude hardware for lifts mounted inside a sealed
compartment from the environmental test requirements. The agency has
recognized the corrosion resistant properties of stainless steel in
FMVSS No. 209, which excludes hardware made of corrosion-resistant
steel with a minimum of 11.5 percent chromium from the environmental
test requirements. Given the corrosion resistance properties of
stainless steel, if a lift manufacturer desires to incur the additional
expense of making an external lift and all of its associated hardware
and components completely out of stainless steel, we believe it is
appropriate to exclude such a lift from the environmental resistance
tests in S7.3 of the final rule. However, a manufacturer must select
which option it will rely on for certification by the time it certifies
a lift and may not thereafter select a different option.
G. Platform Deflection
Under the platform deflection requirements in S6.4.5 of FMVSS No.
403, the angle of a platform relative to the vehicle floor cannot be
more than 1.8 degrees when no load is present. In addition, the loaded
platform may not deflect so that the angle of the loaded platform is
more than three degrees from the angle of the unloaded platform. This
limit on deflection prevents the platform from becoming unstable when
loaded. We note that in a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
(SNPRM), the agency initially proposed an unloaded deflection angle of
one degree with respect to the vehicle floor. (65 FR 46228; July 27,
2000). In response to the SNPRM, Lift-U commented that the one-degree
maximum was too restrictive, and would prohibit lifts designed to
conform to the crown of various road surfaces. Therefore, the agency
adopted the 1.8 degree maximum permissible deflection angle relative to
the vehicle floor.
In responding to the final rule, Lift-U agreed with the maximum
deflection of three degrees between the loaded and unloaded conditions.
However, Lift-U argued that the overall maximum deflection (consisting
of the unloaded deflection with respect to the vehicle floor plus the
deflection between the loaded and unloaded conditions) should be a
maximum of 4.8 degrees with no further limit on the angle of deflection
between the unloaded platform and the vehicle floor. Lift-U stated that
an absolute angle requirement would allow for various combinations of
unloaded and loaded deflection angles that when summed together would
be less than or equal to the maximum 4.8 degrees. The petitioner
further argued that this flexibility would allow the lift to conform to
the crown of various road surfaces when at the ground level loading
positions. Lift-U also noted that the 4.8 degree maximum is in line
with the ADA requirements for general access to buildings and
therefore, persons relying on various mobility aids are familiar with
slopes of this degree.
Agency response: The agency is granting Lift-U's petition to amend
the platform deflection angle requirements. We are amending the
platform deflection requirements to eliminate the 1.8 degree
restriction for the angle of deflection between the unloaded platform
and the vehicle floor. The overall deflection angle requirement of a
maximum of 4.8 degrees will remain the same, assuring that a platform
lift will not be at too great of a slope.
In cases in which there is no deflection upon loading, the unloaded
deflection angle may be as high as 4.8 degrees with respect to the
vehicle floor. The loaded deflection angle is still required to be less
than or equal to 3 degrees with respect to the unloaded position. The
3-degree requirement will prevent a platform from suddenly tilting too
much when a passenger moves onto the lift.
In all cases, the sum of the unloaded and loaded angles must not
exceed 4.8 degrees. This permits flexibility of design and will
eliminate the need to redesign of existing platform lifts.
Additionally, the 4.8-degree maximum maintains consistency with the
slope requirements for general building access under the ADA, a
condition with which platform lift users will most likely be familiar.
H. Edge Guards
In response to a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, Lift-U
had requested that the agency amend the requirement for continuous edge
guards and allow them to be present and continuous along the sides of
the platform to within three inches from the outer platform edge. The
three-inch allowance at the outer edge was established to facilitate
the loading and unloading of a lift passenger when space is limited.
Reducing the length of the edge guard allows a lift occupant to turn
his or her mobility device when the space directly in front of the
platform is restricted. The December 2002 final rule addressed Lift-U's
request.
In its petition for reconsideration, Lift-U stated that for passive
lifts, edge guards that extend below the lowest step riser when the
platform is stowed interfere with vehicle doors when closed. The
petitioner further argued that edge guards within three inches of the
inner edge of a platform may become a tripping hazard inside the bus,
and recommended a three-inch allowance from the inner edge. It also
stated that it may be unnecessary for edge guards to be continuous
along the sides of a lift platform when there are obstacles such as
handrails, retention devices and roll-stops that box the wheelchair in
and keep it from going off the sides of the platform. It suggested
having a performance test requirement for edge guards as an alternative
to requiring continuous edge guards.
Agency response: NHTSA recognizes the problems that continuous edge
guards cause on some passive lifts, particularly with edge guards
located within three inches of the inner edge (vehicle side) of the
platform. The ADA and the FTA both require that edge guards must not
interfere with maneuvering into or out of a vehicle aisle. At the same
time, barriers should prevent any of the wheels of a wheelchair or
mobility aid from rolling off of the platform during its operation. For
passive lifts, edge guards that extend below the lowest step riser when
the lift is stowed could potentially interfere with bus door operation,
as well as present a tripping hazard to passengers. Edge guards that
extend past a point three inches from the inner edge of the platform
may also become a tripping hazard in the isle of a vehicle when the
lift is stowed. The existence of such an obstacle on the inner edge of
the platform when stowed would be in violation of ADA if it interferes
with maneuvering into or out of the aisle.
The three-inch allowance for the outside edge of the platform does
not diminish safety, as the remaining edge guards and the outer
barrier/wheelchair retention device box a wheelchair into the area of
the platform and prevent the wheels of a mobility device from rolling
off of the edge of the platform. For these same reasons, we see no
safety reason for not allowing edge guards to stop within three inches
of the inner edge of the platform. The edge guards that remain are
adequate to prevent wheels of a mobility device from rolling off the
edge of the platform. Accordingly, we are amending S6.4.6.1 of FMVSS
No. 403 to require edge guards that extend continuously along each side
of the platform lift to within three inches of the edges of the
platform at both the ground and vehicle floor level loading positions.
In addition, the agency agrees that permitting compliance with a
[[Page 58848]]
performance test requirement as an alternative to continuous guards
would be less design restrictive. Therefore, the agency is establishing
a performance test as an alternative means to comply with the edge
guard requirements.
The agency is amending S7.7, Wheelchair retention device impact
test, of FMVSS No. 403 to include an edge guard performance test as an
alternative to the continuous edge guard requirement. The test consists
of operating a wheelchair test device from side-to-side and corner-to-
corner on the platform. At the end of each test, all wheels of the
wheelchair test device must be in contact with the platform surface.
During the test, the footrests are removed from the wheelchair test
device to test for the worse case scenario. A lift with sufficient edge
guards, handrails, wheelchair retention devices and roll-stops to box a
mobility aid onto the platform to prevent its wheels from rolling off
the edge of the platform will comply with the edge guard requirements.
I. Test Device
To improve the repeatability of the newly established edge guard
test, as well as other tests that use the wheelchair test device, the
agency is amending S7.1.2, Wheelchair test device, to further specify
the operating conditions. The specifications are amended to include a
minimum level of battery charge and level of tire inflation. The agency
is specifying that the charge on a battery be a minimum of 75 percent
of rated nominal capacity.\5\ Because repeatability can also depend on
proper tire inflation, the pneumatic tires of the wheelchair test
device are to be inflated to the wheelchair manufacturer's recommended
pressure or, if no recommendation exists, to the maximum pressure that
appears on the sidewalls of the tires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ This level is consistent with ANSI/RESNA WC/Volume 1-1998,
Section 22: Set Up Procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Control Systems
Lift-U requested that the agency clarify the term ``control
system'' as used in S6.7.1 through S6.7.5 in FMVSS No. 403, stating
that as currently used, the term may be interpreted too broadly. Lift-U
cited S6.7.5, which states, ``Any single point failure in the control
system may not prevent the operation of any of the interlocks as
specified in S6.10.'' Lift-U expressed concern that in this context the
phrase ``control system'' may be interpreted as requiring lifts to have
redundant or back-up control systems with functional checks on start
up.
Lift-U also requested that the lift control location requirements
for public use lifts in S6.7.7 be amended. As adopted in the final
rule, S6.7.7 requires that lift controls for public use lifts, other
than those used for backup operation, be positioned together and in a
location such that a person facing the controls has a direct,
unobstructed view of the platform lift passenger and the passenger's
mobility aid, if applicable. Lift-U contends that many passive lifts
are installed in the front doorway of buses. This installation allows
ambulatory passengers to use steps when the lift is stowed and persons
with disabilities to use the lift when it is deployed. Lift-U explained
that the controls for these front door lifts are located on the vehicle
dash. Therefore, Lift-U argued, the driver has an unobstructed view of
the lift passenger and the passenger's mobility aid but must
momentarily look at the dash to see the controls. The petitioner
further argued that the requirement as written would eliminate this
configuration, which is currently a prevalent design and does not
present a safety problem.
Agency response: While the control system requirements in the final
rule were derived from ADA requirements and FTA guidelines, we agree
that as currently used in the standard, the phrase ``control system''
may be interpreted in an overly broad manner. For purposes of clarity,
the agency is replacing the phrase ``control system'' with ``control
panel switches'' in S6.7 of FMVSS No. 403.
Under the discussion of ``control systems'' in the final rule, the
agency explained that ``each system would need to have a `power'
switch, a `deploy' or `unfold' switch, an `up' switch and a ``down''
switch[.]'' This was intended to clarify that ``control system'' refers
to the switches on the operator control panel. Replacing the phrase
``control system'' with the phrase ``control panel switches'' more
accurately reflects intent of the final rule.
NHTSA also recognizes the restriction resulting from the
positioning requirements for control panel switches. FTA guidelines
indicate that the control console should be located in a position where
the lift operator (driver) has a direct unobstructed view of the
platform during lift operation.\6\ This does not require the operator
to have an unobstructed view of the platform while facing the controls.
NHTSA believes that there is no significant reduction in the level of
safety by simply requiring that the lift operator have an unobstructed
view of the lift passenger and passenger's mobility aid. Accordingly,
we are amending S6.7.7 to be consistent with FTA guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ FTA, ``Guideline Specifications for Passive Lifts, Active
Lifts, Wheelchair Ramps, and Securement Devices,'' September 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
K. Minimum Load Requirements for Private Use Lifts
S4 of FMVSS No. 403 requires private use lifts to comply with a
minimum standard load rating of 400 lb (181 kg) and public use lifts to
comply with a minimum standard load rating of 600 lb (272 kg). The
difference in standard load rating reflects the difference in use
patterns between a private use lift and a public use lift.
The University of Pittsburgh petitioned to have both public and
private use lifts comply with the 600 lb (272 kg) standard load rating.
It indicated that the average weight of 26 commonly used wheelchairs is
199 pounds and the weight is often increased as a result of add-on
devices such as a tilt-in-space seat. The University of Pittsburgh
argued that when combined with the weight of a 250-pound occupant (the
maximum occupant weight capacity of most power wheelchairs), a 400-
pound minimum load rating is likely to be inadequate. The petitioner
further argued that the lower load capacity requirement for private use
lifts will place an unnecessary burden on users by requiring them to
have knowledge of their combined wheelchair-user weight in order to
determine appropriate lift capacity. It argued that the 400-pound
minimum does not take into account later changes in a user's mobility
device or subsequent users that may result in the lift capacity
becoming exceeded. The University of Pittsburgh added that the required
``DOT-Private Use Lift'' labeling does not convey the load capacity
associated with the lift, making it unnecessarily difficult to
ascertain appropriate load capacity.
Agency response: The agency is denying the University of
Pittsburgh's request to increase the load capacity of private-use
lifts. We note that the SNPRM for the final rule proposed a 600-pound
standard load for testing all lifts, both private and public. This
single standard was based on harmonization with voluntary standards and
guidelines, as well as the fact that it was possible for the weight of
many power wheelchair/occupant combinations to approach 491 lbs.
(weight of a 99th percentile male and a 250 lb. powered wheelchair).
In response to the SNPRM, several commenters requested that the
standard be amended to permit a lower load
[[Page 58849]]
capacity for private use lifts, as private use lifts are not required
to conform with ADA requirements or harmonize with the ADA
Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities. Commenters
indicated that there are lifts in existence designed for smaller
vehicles (some minivans) and lighter wheelchair/occupant loads (e.g., a
child in a manual wheelchair) that would be forced from the market if
they had to be tested with a 600-pound load.
The agency has already recognized the different use patterns
between public and private use lifts. Public use lifts are more heavily
used and must accommodate many different types of mobility aids while
private use lifts are used less frequently and are usually purchased
for a specific individual and mobility aid. The lower load capacity for
private use lifts gives manufacturers the flexibility to produce lifts
for individuals with smaller vehicles or smaller load requirements.
When an individual purchases or is prescribed a new vehicle equipped
with a platform lift, the user must rely on present and anticipated
needs in order to obtain a lift that best suits that individual.
Further, S6.7.8.4 of FMVSS No. 403 requires that a lift's rated load
must appear near the lift controls in addition to the statement ``DOT--
Private Use Lift.'' This information must also appear in the vehicle
owner's manual insert.
The load rating requirements established under the final rule
provide more flexibility to lift manufacturers and more options to
private lift users. At the same time, the standard ensures that users
are aware of the load limitations of each lift. Therefore, the agency
is maintaining a minimum 400-pound load capacity requirement for
private use lifts. However, the 400-pound minimum load capacity does
not prevent an individual from installing a lift with a higher load
capacity. An individual could even install a lift certified to the
public lift requirements.
L. Threshold Warning Signal
Under the final rule, private use lifts are required to have either
an audible or visual threshold warning, while public use lifts are
required to have both an audible and visual threshold warning. A
threshold warning signal warns a lift user exiting a vehicle that the
lift platform is more than one inch below the vehicle's floor reference
plane and the platform threshold area is occupied by a portion of the
lift user's body or mobility aid. The warning is to prevent users from
exiting a vehicle when the platform is not in position.
Prevost petitioned the agency to eliminate the requirement for
public use lifts to be equipped with both audio and visual threshold
alarms. It indicated that trained drivers are always present while a
lift is in operation and maintained that there are no dangers that
justify a warning signal. Prevost argued that on their vehicles, the
lift control panel is located just beside the lift and as soon as the
lift user is inside the coach, the driver lowers the platform and shuts
the door. It stated that because of this procedure, there is no danger
that would warrant the need for threshold alarms.
Agency response: The basic threshold warning requirement in FMVSS
No. 403 was derived from the SAE lift standard.\7\ In private use
applications, the specific lift user and his or her mobility aid are
known quantities and the lift is usually purchased for that person's
particular needs. In public use applications, lift users and their
mobility aids are unknown quantities. The lift system is used by a wide
variety of persons with various disabilities, impairments and mobility
aids. Thus, the requirement of both visual and audible threshold
warnings signals on public use vehicles equipped with lifts, is
intended to provide a threshold warning system that will benefit the
majority of public lift users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J2093, issued May
1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in the preamble of the final rule, NHTSA does not have
the authority to regulate drivers or driver training. We can only
regulate vehicles and vehicle equipment. Requirements and performance
tests are written to further safety whether there is a trained driver/
assistant present or not. In the public use environment, when lift
users are positioned on the vehicle threshold area and are preparing to
move onto the lift platform, it is important that they be warned when
the platform is more than one inch below the vehicle floor level.
Considering the wide variety of persons with various disabilities that
a public use lift must accommodate and the height of the vehicle
threshold above the ground, particularly on motor coaches, it is
reasonable to require both audible and visual threshold-warning alarms.
Therefore, the agency is denying Prevost's petition with regard to this
issue.
M. Wheelchair Restraint Standards
In its petition for reconsideration of the Final Rule, Prevost also
expressed concern with the lack of wheelchair restraint requirements in
FMVSS No. 404 to address wheelchair securement once a wheelchair is
inside a vehicle.
Agency response: The ADA and DOT regulations regarding securement
of a mobility device remain in effect and are not altered by FMVSS Nos.
403 and 404. The ATBCB published guidelines for DOT to follow in
implementing the ADA and stated, ``NHTSA was the appropriate agency to
define safety tests for platform lifts.'' (Emphasis added). The DOT
regulations contain requirements for platform lifts, as well as,
securement devices for wheelchairs and other mobility aids (49 CFR,
Part 38, Subpart B). FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 apply only to platform
lifts designed to carry persons aided by canes or walkers, as well as,
persons seated in wheelchairs, scooters and other mobility devices into
and out of motor vehicles. Relative to mobility aid securement devices,
the ADA requirements are applicable and require at least two mobility
aid securement locations on vehicles in excess of 22 feet in length and
at least one mobility aid securement location on vehicles less than or
equal to 22 feet in length. In addition, the ADA provides requirements
for mobility aid securement devices relative to design load, location/
size, types of mobility aids accommodated, orientation, movement,
stowage, and seat belts/shoulder harnesses. Aside from FMVSS No. 222,
School bus passenger seating and crash protection, which provides
performance tests for mobility aid securement devices in school buses,
there are no other NHTSA mobility aid securement device requirements
for other vehicles.
N. Cost of Testing
Several petitioners raised concern over the cost of various testing
requirements and the cost of the platform lift regulations over all.
Prevost stated that the time, cost and space necessary to perform the
fatigue endurance testing required by S7.10 of FMVSS No. 403 would be
excessive. Prevost indicated that a simple static test with a high
enough safety factor could replace the endurance testing, while still
assuring the robustness of the lift/vehicle attachment point. Further,
Prevost expressed confusion as to whether it was the lift manufacturer
or the vehicle manufacturer that is responsible for certifying to
endurance requirements.
Stewart & Stevenson stated that permitting the fatigue endurance
testing and the proof load testing (S7.11 of FMVSS No. 403) to be
performed on a jig, as opposed to testing on a vehicle, would reduce
the compliance costs. Stewart & Stevenson estimated that the cost of
fatigue testing a platform lift on
[[Page 58850]]
an over-the-road coach would cost $450,000 per test as compared to a
cost of $35,000 per test using a jig. As such, Stewart & Stevenson
requested that the standard be amended to clarify that certification
testing can be performed through use of a jig, as opposed to testing
performed on a vehicle.
Generally, the Braun Corporation disagreed with the agency's cost
estimate of $300 per lift to comply with FMVSS No. 403 and 404. The
Braun Corporation estimated that the cost for complying with the
electrical portions of the standard would alone be $300 and that
compliance with the mechanical aspects would be an additional $300. The
Braun Corporation argued that this increase would translate to a retail
cost of four to six times higher than that estimated by NHTSA and was
concerned that higher consumer costs would reduce the options available
to the end users.
Agency response: The agency maintains that the compliance costs
estimated in the Final Rule are an accurate estimate, given the
incorporation of industry and ADA guidelines into the standards, given
that most commercial lifts already comply with the industry standards,
and given that manufacturers must already comply with the ADA
guidelines for public use lifts.
For clarification, FMVSS No. 403 is an equipment standard. All of
the requirements contained therein apply to platform lifts and platform
lift manufacturers. FMVSS No. 404 is a vehicle standard. All of the
requirements therein apply to manufacturers of vehicles equipped with
platform lifts. The lift manufacturer must certify that a lift complies
with the fatigue endurance requirements specified in S6.5.1 of FMVSS
No. 403 on all vehicles for which the lift is intended.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Under S6.13.1 of FMVSS No. 403 a list of suitable vehicles
must appear in the installation instructions. Vehicles may be
identified by listing the make, model and year of the vehicles for
which the lift is suitable, or by specifying the design elements
that would make a vehicle an appropriate host for the particular
lift.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fatigue requirements in S6.5.1 and the related performance test
in S7.10 not only verify the integrity of the lift, but also verify the
integrity of the lift's attachment to the vehicle. Although lift
attachment points usually do not move, some flexion may occur as the
lift is cycled, which may eventually result in fracture and/or
separation. Fatigue or life cycle testing is generally the best way to
reveal such problems.
However, the self-certification process established by the National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act permits manufacturers to certify
compliance with requirements in ways other than performing actual tests
on all lift/vehicle combinations. Each FMVSS specifies performance
requirements for the vehicle or equipment to which the standard
applies. While manufacturers are not required to conduct certification
tests in any particular manner, any manufacturer that wishes to base
its certification of compliance on a test procedure that is different
from that included in the standard must necessarily assess whether the
results of the alternative test procedure are good predictors of the
results of the test procedure specified in the standard.
Additionally, no lift manufacturers provided data that would
demonstrate costs to manufacturers greater than those determined by the
agency in the final rule. The agency expects the costs to decrease with
regards to the electrical interlock requirements given that an
amendment in this notice permits lift manufacturers to rely on
interlock components already in companion vehicles. This will reduce
the design and material costs for these systems.
III. Corrections
This document corrects several errors in the Final Rule. Lift-U
noted that the final rule erroneously listed the threshold warning test
in S7.4 of FMVSS No. 403 as a test that can be performed on a test jig
when in fact, the procedure in S7.4 is performed on a lift/vehicle
combination. Therefore, the regulatory text has been appropriately
amended.
Further, the wheelchair retention device impact test, S7.7.1, to
which the edge guard test was added, may be performed on a jig. The
added edge guard test adopted by this document, S7.7.4, specifies
testing on a lift/vehicle combination. The regulatory language has been
amended in S7 to reflect these additions.
Lift-U also brought to our attention an error in S6.2.1 of FMVSS
No. 403. The first sentence of S6.2.1 states, ``Throughout the range of
passenger operation and during the lift operations specified in S7.6,
the platform lift must meet the requirements of S6.2.2 through
S6.2.4.'' S7.6 is the test for occupancy of the inner-roll stop and
interlock function. S6.2.1 was intended to reference operations in
S7.9, Static load test I--working load. S6.2.1 is amended accordingly.
Additionally, S7.1.1 is amended to properly reference the appropriate
load test provisions.
S7.9 is referenced throughout FMVSS No. 403. The interlock
requirements in S6.10.2.3 references the operations in S7.9.7 and
S7.9.8 as a test procedure. S6.10.2.3 requires that a platform not stow
when the test block specified in S7.1.4 is placed with its narrow side
down on any portion of the useable surface of the platform. However,
the procedure in S7.9.7 that is referenced requires centering the load
on the platform. The procedures in S6.10.2.3 and S7.9.7 are
conflicting. To eliminate confusion, the references to S7.9.7 and
S7.9.8 are removed from S6.10.2.3. S6.10.2.3 continues to reference the
test device in S7.1.4, but the platform positioning procedures have
been placed directly in S6.10.2.3, instead of relying on cross-
referenced procedures.
Additionally, this document corrects several other minor errors.
S6.2.4, Maximum noise level of public use lifts, erroneously refers to
S6.4.2.2, which describes the operating volume for private use lifts.
S7.7.2.2 is intended to set the lowest point of the footrests to a
height of 50 mm, not 501 mm. S7.14.1 is intended to reference S7.14.2
through S14.4.4. Each of these sections has been amended accordingly.
S6.4.9.3, S6.4.9.9, S7.7.4.1, and S7.13.2 are amended to provide
consistency in the conversion of measurements to metric through out the
standard.
IV. Effective Date
The amendments made in this rule are effective December 27, 2004,
the same date the FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 become effective. The final
rule, which was published December 27, 2002, provided a two-year lead
time in order to allow manufacturers sufficient time to comply with the
requirements of FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404. The amendments made to FMVSS
Nos. 403 and 404 in this document provide manufacturers more
flexibility in complying with these standards. As such, manufacturers
should be able to comply with the amended standard at the same time
they are required to comply with FMVSS No. 403 and 404.
V. 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
[[Page 58851]]
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 December 2002 final rule was classified as
significant because of the public policy consideration involved, as
opposed to the economic implications. This document does not affect the
public policy implications of the final rule. This document clarifies
the application of FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 as well as provides further
flexibility in compliance.
The agency has concluded that the impacts of today's amendments are
so minimal that a full regulatory evaluation is not required. Readers
who are interested in the overall costs and benefits of the platform
lift requirements are referred to the agency's Final Economic
Assessment for the December 2002 final rule (Docket No. NHTSA-2002-
13917-3). NHTSA has determined that today's rule does not change the
costs and benefits estimated in the Final Economic Assessment.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
We have considered the effects of this rulemaking action under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) This action will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
businesses because it does not significantly change the costs of the
December 2002 final rule. This action clarifies the requirements and
test procedures of FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404, in part, through removing
requirements not appropriate for certain platform lift designs.
Additionally, this action provides additional flexibility for
manufacturers by allowing lift manufacturers to rely on existing
vehicle components to comply with the interlock requirements and
through the adoption of a compliance alternative to the edge guard
requirement.
C. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed these amendments for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act and determined that they will not
have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
The agency has analyzed this rulemaking in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 and has
determined that it does not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation
of a federalism summary impact statement. The final rule has no
substantial effects on the States, or on the current Federal-State
relationship, or on the current distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various local officials.
E. 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
(adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This action will not
increase the cost of compliance with FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 as adopted
in the December 2002 Final Rule.
F. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
This final rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under section
49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before
parties may file suit in court.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless
the collection displays a valid OMB control number. The information
disclosure requirements of FMVSS No. 403 and FMVSS No. 404 were granted
OMB clearance; OMB No. 2127-0621. The amendments made to those
standards do not result in any new information or information
disclosure requirements.
H. 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.
I. Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Today's rule has been written with that directive in
mind. We note that many of the requirements of today's rule are
technical in nature. As such, they may require some understanding of
technical terminology. We expect those parties directly affected by
today's rule, i.e., platform lift manufacturers and vehicle
manufacturers to be familiar with such terminology.
J. Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined
to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2)
concerns an environmental, health or safety risk that NHTSA has reason
to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the
regulatory action meets both criteria, we must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children,
and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by us.
This rulemaking does not directly involve health risks that
disproportionately affect children.
K. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary
consensus standards \9\ in its regulatory
[[Page 58852]]
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law
(e.g., the statutory provisions regarding NHTSA's vehicle safety
authority) or otherwise impractical. In meeting that requirement, we
are required to consult with voluntary, private sector, consensus
standards bodies. Examples of organizations generally regarded as
voluntary consensus standards bodies include the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM), the Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE), and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). If NHTSA
does not use available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus
standards, we are required by the Act to provide Congress, through OMB,
an explanation of the reasons for not using such standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
Technical standards are defined by the NTTAA as ``performance-based
or design-specific technical specifications and related management
systems practices.'' They pertain to ``products and processes, such
as size, strength, or technical performance of a product, process or
material.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This document adds a performance based compliance option for edge
guards. The agency searched for, but did not find any voluntary or
industry standards to incorporate for this requirement.
L. Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all submissions
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment or petition (or signing the comment or petition,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Tires.
0
In consideration of the foregoing, the final rules for 49 CFR part 571,
published at 67 FR 79416 (December 27, 2002), effective beginning
December 27, 2004, are amended as follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
0
1. The authority citation for Part 571 of Title 49 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
0
2. Section 571.403 is amended as follows:
0
A. By revising S3, the definitions of ``deploy'' and ``stow'' in S4,
S6.2.1, S6.2.2.2, S6.2.4, S6.3.1, S6.3.2, S6.4.5, S6.4.6.1, S6.4.9.3,
S6.4.9.9, S6.4.11, S6.5.1.1, S6.5.1.2, S6.7 through S6.7.2.2, S6.7.4,
S6.7.5, S6.7.7, S6.10.2, S6.10.2.3, S7, S7.1.1, S7.1.2, S7.1.2.5,
S7.1.2.6, S7.3.3, S7.7, S7.7.2.2, S7.10.5, S7.10.6, S7.13.2 and
S7.14.1;
0
B. By adding S6.13.4.1, S7.1.2.11, S7.7.4 through S7.7.4.6; and
0
C. By removing S6.4.12.
The revisions and additions to Sec. 571.403 read as follows:
Sec. 571.403 Standard No. 403; Platform lift systems for motor
vehicles.
* * * * *
S3. Application. This standard applies to platform lifts designed
to carry standing passengers, who may be aided by canes or walkers, as
well as, persons seated in wheelchairs, scooters and other mobility
aids, into and out of motor vehicles.
S4. Definitions.
* * * * *
Deploy means with respect to a platform, its movement from a stowed
position to an extended position or, one of the two loading positions.
With respect to a wheelchair retention device or inner roll stop, the
term means the movement of the device or stop to a fully functional
position intended to prevent a passenger from disembarking the platform
or being pinched between the platform and vehicle.
* * * * *
Stow means with respect to a platform, its movement from a position
within the range of passenger operation to the position maintained
during normal vehicle travel; and, with respect to a wheelchair
retention device, bridging device, or inner-roll stop, its movement
from a fully functional position to a position maintained during normal
vehicle travel.
* * * * *
S6.2.1 General. Throughout the range of passenger operation and
during the lift operations specified in S7.9.3 through S7.9.8, the
platform lift must meet the requirements of S6.2.2 through S6.2.4.
These requirements must be satisfied both with and without a standard
load on the lift platform, except for S6.2.2.2, which must be satisfied
without any load.
* * * * *
S6.2.2.2 Except for platform lifts that manually stow (fold) and
deploy (unfold), during the stow and deploy operations specified in
S7.9.3 through S7.9.8, both the vertical and horizontal velocity of any
portion of the platform must be less than or equal to 305 mm (12
inches) per second.
* * * * *
S6.2.4 Maximum noise level of public use lifts. Except as provided
in S6.1.5, throughout the range of passenger operation specified in
S7.9.4 through S7.9.7, the noise level of a public use lift may not
exceed 80 dBa as measured at any lift operator's position designated by
the platform lift manufacturer for the intended vehicle and in the area
on the lift defined in S6.4.2.1. Lift operator position measurements
are taken at the vertical centerline of the control panel 30.5 cm (12
in) out from the face of the control panel. In the case of a lift with
a pendant control (i.e., a control tethered to the vehicle by
connective wiring), measurement is taken at the vertical centerline of
the control panel 30.5 cm (12 in) out from the face of the control
panel while the control panel is in its stowed or stored position. For
the lift operator positions outside of the vehicle, measurements are
taken at the intersection of a horizontal plane 157 cm (62 in) above
the ground and the vertical centerline of the face of the control panel
after it has been extended 30.5 cm (12 in) out from the face of the
control panel.
* * * * *
S6.3.1 Internally mounted platform lifts. On platform lifts and
their components internal to the occupant compartment of the vehicle or
internal to other compartments that provide protection from the
elements when stowed, attachment hardware must be free of ferrous
corrosion on significant surfaces except for permissible ferrous
corrosion, as defined in FMVSS No. 209, at peripheral surface edges or
edges of holes on under-floor reinforcing plates and washers after
being subjected to the conditions specified in S7.3. Alternatively,
such hardware must be made from corrosion-resistant steel containing at
least 11.5 percent chromium per FMVSS 571.209, S5.2(a) or must be
protected against corrosion by an electrodeposited coating of nickel,
or copper and nickel with at least a service condition number of SC2,
and other attachment hardware must be protected by an electrodeposited
coating of nickel, or copper and nickel with a service condition number
of SC1, in accordance with ASTM B456-95, but such hardware may not be
racked for electroplating in locations subjected to maximum stress. The
manufacturer shall select the option by the time it certifies the lift
and may not thereafter select a different option for the lift. The lift
must be accompanied by all attachment hardware necessary for its
installation on a vehicle.
[[Page 58853]]
S6.3.2 Externally mounted platform lifts. On platform lifts and
their components external to the occupant compartment of the vehicle
and external to other compartments that provide protection from the
elements when stowed, the lift and its components must be free of
ferrous corrosion on significant surfaces except for permissible
ferrous corrosion, as defined in FMVSS No. 209, at peripheral surface
edges and edges of holes and continue to function properly after being
subjected to the conditions specified in S7.3. Alternatively, such
lifts and all associated hardware and components must be completely
made from corrosion-resistant steel containing at least 11.5 percent
chromium per FMVSS 571.209, S5.2(a). The manufacturer shall select the
option by the time it certifies the lift and may not thereafter select
a different option for the lift. The lift must be accompanied by all
attachment hardware necessary for its installation on a vehicle.
* * * * *
S6.4.5 Platform deflection. The angle of the deployed platform,
when stationary, and loaded with a standard load, must not exceed 4.8
degrees with respect to the vehicle floor and must not exceed 3 degrees
with respect to the platform's unloaded position. The angles are
measured between a vertical axis from the vehicle floor and an axis
normal to the platform center as shown in Figure 1.
* * * * *
S6.4.6.1 The platform lift must have edge guards that extend
continuously along each side of the lift platform to within 75 mm (3
inches) of the edges of the platform that are traversed while entering
and exiting the platform at both the ground and vehicle floor level
loading positions. The edge guards must be parallel to the direction of
wheelchair movement during loading and unloading. Alternatively, when
tested in accordance with S7.7.4, all portions of the wheels of the
wheelchair test device must remain above the platform surface and after
the control is released to Neutral, at the end of each attempt to steer
the test device off the platform, all wheels of the wheelchair test
device must be in contact with the platform surface. The manufacturer
shall select the option by the time it certifies the lift and may not
thereafter select a different option for the lift.
* * * * *
S6.4.9.3 The graspable portion of each handrail may not be less
than 760 mm (30 inches) and more than 965 mm (38 inches) above the
platform surface, measured vertically.
* * * * *
S6.4.9.9 When tested in accordance with S7.12.2, each handrail must
withstand 1,112 N (250 lb/f) applied at any point and in any direction
on the handrail without sustaining any failure, such as cracking,
separation, fracture, or more than 100 mm (4 inches) of displacement of
any point on the handrails relative to the platform surface.
* * * * *
S6.4.11 Platform slip resistance. When tested in accordance with
S7.2, the coefficient of friction, in any direction, of any part of a
wet platform surface may not be less than 0.65.
* * * * *
S6.5.1.1 Public use lifts. Except for lifts that manually stow
(fold) and deploy (unfold), public use lifts must remain operable when
operated through a total of 15,600 cycles: 7,800 unloaded Raise/Lower
and Stow/Deploy operations and 7,800 loaded Raise/Lower operations as
specified in S7.10. Public use lifts that manually stow (fold) and
deploy (unfold) must remain operable when operated through a total of
15,600 cycles: 7,800 unloaded Raise/Lower operations and 7,800 loaded
Raise/Lower operations. No separation, fracture, or breakage of any
vehicle or lift component may occur as a result of conducting the
fatigue test in S7.10.
S6.5.1.2 Private use lifts. Except for lifts that manually stow
(fold) and deploy (unfold), private use lifts must remain operable when
operated through a total of 4,400 cycles: 2,200 unloaded Raise/Lower
and Stow/Deploy operations and 2,200 loaded Raise/Lower operations as
specified in S7.10. Private use lifts that manually stow (fold) and
deploy (unfold) must remain operable when operated through a total of
4,400 cycles: 2,200 unloaded Raise/Lower operations and 2,200 loaded
Raise/Lower operations. No separation, fracture, or breakage of any
vehicle or lift component may occur as a result of conducting the
fatigue test in S7.10.
* * * * *
S6.7 Control panel switches.
S6.7.1 The platform lift must meet the requirements of S6.7.2
through S6.7.8 and, when operated by means of the control panel
switches specified in S6.7.2, must perform the lift operations
specified in S7.9.
S6.7.2 The platform lift system must have control panel switches
that perform not less than the following functions: (platform lifts
that manually stow (fold) and deploy (unfold) are exempt from S6.7.2.2
and S6.7.2.5).
S6.7.2.1 Enables and disables the lift control panel switches. This
function must be identified as ``POWER'' if located on the control. The
POWER function must have two states: ``ON'' and ``OFF''. The ``ON''
state must allow platform lift operation. When the POWER function is in
the ``ON'' state, an indicator light on the controls must illuminate.
The ``OFF'' state must prevent lift operation and must turn off the
indicator light. Verification with this requirement is made throughout
the lift operations specified in S7.9.3 through S7.9.8.
S6.7.2.2 Moves the lift from a stowed position to an extended
position or, to one of the two loading positions. This function must be
identified as ``DEPLOY'' or ``UNFOLD'' on the control.
* * * * *
S6.7.4 Except for the POWER function described in S6.7.2.1, the
control panel switches specified in S6.7.2 must prevent the
simultaneous performance of more than one function. Verification with
this requirement is made throughout the lift operations specified in
S7.9.3 through S7.9.8.
S6.7.5 Any single-point failure in the control panel switches may
not prevent the operation of any of the interlocks as specified in
S6.10.
* * * * *
S6.7.7 Control location for public use lifts: In public use lifts,
except for the backup operation specified in S6.9, all control panel
switches must be positioned together and in a location such that the
lift operator has a direct, unobstructed view of the platform lift
passenger and the passenger's mobility aid, if applicable. Verification
with this requirement is made throughout the lift operations specified
in S7.9.3 through S7.9.8. Additional controls may be positioned in
other locations.
* * * * *
S6.10.2 The platform lift system must have interlocks or operate in
such a manner when installed according to the installation
instructions, as to prevent:
* * * * *
S6.10.2.3 Stowing of the platform lift when occupied by portions of
a passenger's body, and/or a mobility aid. Platform lifts designed to
be occupied while stowed and platform lifts that manually stow (fold)
are excluded from this requirement. Verification with this requirement
is made using the test device specified in S7.1.4. Move the deployed
platform lift to a position within the range of passenger operation
where it will stow if the control specified in S6.7.2.5 is actuated.
Place
[[Page 58854]]
the test device specified in S7.1.4 on its narrowest side on any
portion of the platform surface that coincides with the unobstructed
platform operating volume described in S6.4.2. Using the operator
control specified in S7.7.2.5, attempt to stow the lift. The interlock
must prevent the lift from stowing.
* * * * *
S6.13.4.1 Installation instructions for public use lifts must
contain the statement ``Public use vehicle manufacturers are
responsible for complying with the lift lighting requirements in
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 404, Platform Lift
Installations in Motor Vehicles (49 CFR 571.404).''
* * * * *
S7. Test conditions and procedures. Each platform lift must be
capable of meeting all of the tests specified in this standard, both
separately, and in the sequence specified in this section. The tests
specified in S7.4, S7.7.4 and S7.8 through S7.11 are performed on a
single lift and vehicle combination. The tests specified in S7.2, S7.3,
S7.5, S7.6, S7.7.1 and S7.12 through S7.14 may be performed with the
lift installed on a test jig rather than on a vehicle. Tests of
requirements in S6.1 through S6.11 may be performed on a single lift
and vehicle combination, except for the requirements of S6.5.3.
Attachment hardware may be replaced if damaged by removal and
reinstallation of the lift between a test jig and vehicle.
* * * * *
S7.1.1 Test pallet and load. The surface of the test pallet that
rests on the platform used for the tests specified in S7.9 through
S7.11 and S7.14 has sides that measure between 660 mm (26 in) and 686
mm (27 in). For the tests specified in S7.9 and S7.10, the test pallet
is made of a rectangular steel plate of uniform thickness and the load
that rests on the test pallet is made of rectangular steel plate(s) of
uniform thickness and sides that measure between 533 mm (21 in) and 686
mm (27 in). The standard test load that rests on the pallet is defined
in S4.
S7.1.2 Wheelchair test device. The test device is an unloaded power
wheelchair whose size is appropriate for a 95th percentile male and
that has the dimensions, configuration and components described in
S7.1.2.1 through S7.1.2.11. If the dimension in S7.1.2.9 is measured
for a particular wheelchair by determining its tipping angle, the
batteries are prevented from moving from their original position.
* * * * *
S7.1.2.5 Two pneumatic rear tires with a diameter not less than 495
mm (19.5 in) and not more than 521 mm (20.5 in) inflated to the
wheelchair manufacturer's recommended pressure or if no recommendation
exists, to the maximum pressure that appears on the sidewall of the
tire;
S7.1.2.6 Two pneumatic front tires with a diameter not less than
190 mm (7.5 in) and not more than 216 mm (8.5 in) inflated to the
wheelchair manufacturer's recommended pressure or if no recommendation
exists, to the maximum pressure that appears on the sidewall of the
tire;
* * * * *
S7.1.2.11 Batteries with a charge not less than 75 percent of their
rated nominal capacity (for tests that require use of the wheelchair's
propulsion system).
* * * * *
S7.3.3 For attachment hardware located within the occupant
compartment of the motor vehicle or internal to other compartments that
provide protection from the elements and not at or near the floor of
the compartment, the period of the test is 25 hours, consisting of one
period of 24 hours exposure to salt spray followed by one hour drying.
* * * * *
S7.7 Wheelchair retention device impact test and edge guard test.
* * * * *
S7.7.2.2 If the wheelchair retention device is an outer barrier,
the footrests are adjusted such that at their lowest point they have a
height 25 mm 2 mm (1 in 0.08 in) less than
the outer barrier. If the wheelchair retention device is not an outer
barrier, the footrests are adjusted such that at their lowest point
they have a height 50 mm 2 mm (2 in 0.08 in)
above the platform.
* * * * *
S7.7.4 Edge Guard Test. Determine compliance with S6.4.6 using the
test device specified in S7.1.2 by performing the test procedure
specified in S7.7.4.1 through S7.7.4.6. During the edge guard tests,
remove the footrests from the wheelchair test device.
S7.7.4.1 Position the platform surface 90 mm 10 mm
(3.5 in 0.4 in) above the ground level loading position.
S7.7.4.2 Place the test device on the platform surface with its
plane of symmetry coincident with the lift reference plane within
10 mm ( 0.4 in), its forward direction of
travel inboard toward the vehicle, and its position on the platform as
far rearward as the wheelchair retention device or outer barrier will
allow it to be placed.
S7.7.4.3 Adjust the control of the test device to a setting that
provides maximum acceleration and steer the test device from side-to-
side and corner-to-corner of the lift platform, attempting to steer the
test device off the platform. After each attempt, when the wheelchair
test device stalls due to contact with a barrier, release the control
to Neutral and realign the test device to the starting position. Repeat
this sequence at any level that is greater than 90 mm 10
mm (3.5 in 0.4 in) above the ground level loading position
and less than 38 mm 10 mm (1.5 in 0.4 in)
below the vehicle floor level loading position. Repeat this sequence at
38 mm 10 mm (1.5 in 0.4 in) below the vehicle
floor level loading position.
S7.7.4.4 Next position the platform surface 38 mm 10
mm (1.5 in 0.4 in) below the vehicle floor level loading
position.
S7.7.4.5 Reposition the test device on the platform surface with
its plane of symmetry coincident with the lift reference plane within
10 mm ( 0.4 in), its forward direction of
travel outboard away from the vehicle, and its position on the platform
as far rearward as the wheelchair inner roll-stop or vehicle body will
allow it to be placed.
S7.7.4.6 Adjust the control of the test device to a setting that
provides maximum acceleration and steer the test device from side-to-
side and corner-to-corner of the lift platform, attempting to steer the
test device off the platform. After each attempt, when the wheelchair
test device stalls due to contact with a barrier, release the control
to Neutral and realign the test device to the starting position. Repeat
this sequence at any level that is greater than 90 mm 10
mm (3.5 in 0.4 in) above the ground level loading position
and less than 38 mm 10 mm (1.5 in 0.4 in)
below the vehicle floor level loading position. Repeat this sequence at
38 mm 10 mm (1.5 in 0.4 in) below the vehicle
floor level loading position.
* * * * *
S7.10.5 Public use lifts: Using the lift controls specified in
S6.7.2, perform the operations specified in S7.10.5.1 through S7.10.5.3
in the order they are given. Public use lifts that manually stow (fold)
and deploy (unfold) are not required to perform the stow and deploy
portions of the tests.
* * * * *
S7.10.6 Private use lifts: Using the lift controls specified in
S6.7.2, perform the operation specified in S7.10.6.1 through S7.10.6.3
in the order they are given. Private use lifts that manually stow
(fold) and deploy (unfold) are not
[[Page 58855]]
required to perform the stow and deploy portions of the tests.
* * * * *
S7.13.2 Position the platform surface 90 mm 10 mm (3.5
in 0.4 in) above the ground level loading position. Apply
7,117 N (1,600 lbf) to the wheelchair retention device in a direction
parallel to both the platform lift and platform reference planes.
Attain the force within 1 minute after beginning to apply it.
* * * * *
S7.14.1 Perform the test procedures as specified in S7.14.2 through
S7.14.4 to determine compliance with S6.5.3.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 571.404 by revising S3 and S4.3 and adding S4.1.5 to
read as follows:
Sec. 571.404 Standard No. 404; Platform lift installations in motor
vehicles.
* * * * *
S3. Application. This standard applies to motor vehicles equipped
with a platform lift designed to carry standing passengers who may be
aided by canes or walkers, as well as, persons seated in wheelchairs,
scooters and other mobility aids, into and out of the vehicle.
* * * * *
S4.1.5 Platform lighting on public use lifts. Public use lifts must
have a light or a set of lights that provide at least 54 lm/
m2 (5 lm/sqft) of luminance on all portions of the surface
of the platform, throughout the range of passenger operation. The
luminance on all portions of the surface of the passenger-unloading
ramp at ground level must be at least 11 lm/m2 (1 lm/sqft).
* * * * *
S4.3 Control panel switches.
* * * * *
Issued: September 24, 2004.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 04-21976 Filed 9-30-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P