[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 244 (Thursday, December 20, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72326-72340]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-6146]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2007-0052]
RIN 2127-AJ93
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: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); grant in part, denial in
part of petitions for rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 72327]]
SUMMARY: This document responds to six petitions for rulemaking to
amend the Federal motor vehicle safety standards on platform lift
systems for motor vehicles. The purpose of these standards is to
prevent injuries and fatalities during lift operation. Pursuant to the
agency's partial grant of the petitions, NHTSA proposes to amend the
platform lift standards to revise the lighting requirements for lift
controls; the location, performance requirements, and test
specifications for threshold warning signals; the specifications for
the wheelchair test device; the wheelchair retention device and inner
roll stop tests; and the lighting requirements for public use lifts.
In addition, NHTSA denies a request to amend the wheelchair test
device specifications to include anti-tipping devices and proposes
several technical changes designed to further clarify these standards.
Finally, this notice discusses a November 3, 2005, interpretation
clarifying specific components of the threshold warning signal test
specified in one of the standards.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 19, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: (202) 493-2251.
Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the
docket number of this document.
You may call the Docket Management Facility at 202-366-9826.
Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy Act heading under Rulemaking
Analyses and Notices.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical and policy issues, you
may contact Mr. William Evans, Office of Crash Avoidance Safety
Standards at (telephone: 202-366-2272) (Fax: 202-493-2990). For legal
issues, you may contact Mr. Edward Glancy, Office of Chief Counsel
(Telephone: 202-366-2992) (Fax: 202-366-3820). You may send mail to
these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building, Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Petitions for Rulemaking
A. Amend the Control Panel Switch Requirements in S6.7.6.2 of
FMVSS No. 403 So That Lift Controls in a Location Remote From the
Driver's Seating Position Are Not Subject to the Illumination
Requirements in S5.3 of FMVSS No. 101
B. Amend the Threshold Warning Signal Requirements in S6.1.4 of
FMVSS No. 403 To Permit Warning Lights To Be Mounted in a Location
Clearly Visible in Reference to the Lift
C. Amend the Threshold Warning Signal Requirements in S6.1.4 and
S6.1.6 of FMVSS No. 403 To Clarify the Units of Measurement and
Minimum Required Luminance at the Designated Measurement Point
D. Amend the Threshold Warning Test in S7.4 of FMVSS No. 403 To
Include a Performance Test for Warning Systems Using Infrared and
Other Sensor Technologies
E. Amend the Wheelchair Test Device Specification in S7.1.2 of
FMVSS No. 403 To Include Anti-Tip Devices
F. Amend the Wheelchair Retention Impact Test Specifications in
S7.7 of FMVSS No. 403 To Permit Use of a Loaded Wheelchair Test
Device
G. Amend the Requirements for Platform Lighting on Public Lifts
in S4.1.5 of FMVSS No. 404 To Reduce the Illumination Levels to
Those Specified by the ADA and FTA
III. Technical Changes
A. Amend S7 of FMVSS No. 403 To Require Performance of the
Handrail Test in S7.12 on a Lift/Vehicle Combination Rather Than on
a Test Jig
B. Correct Figure 2 in FMVSS No. 403 To Make It Consistent With
the Threshold Beacon Warning Requirements in S6.1.6
C. Clarify the Control Panel Switch Requirements in S6.7.4 of
FMVSS No. 403
D. Amend the Interlock Requirements and Test Procedures in
S6.10.2.4, S6.10.2.5, S6.10.2.6, S6.10.2.7, S7.5 and S7.6 of FMVSS
No. 403
IV. November 3, 2005 Interpretation
V. Proposed Compliance Date
VI. Public Participation
VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
I. Background
December 27, 2002 Final Rule
On December 27, 2002, the agency published in the Federal Register
a final rule establishing FMVSS No. 403, Platform lift systems for
motor vehicles, and FMVSS No. 404, Platform lift installations in motor
vehicles (67 FR 79416). These two new standards provide practicable,
performance-based requirements and compliance procedures for the
regulations promulgated by the DOT under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA).\1\ FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 provide that only
lift systems and vehicles manufactured with 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
designed to carry passengers with limited mobility, including those who
rely on wheelchairs, scooters, canes and other mobility aids, so that
they can move into and out of 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 and
specifies performance tests.
FMVSS No. 404 establishes requirements for vehicles that, as
manufactured, are equipped with platform lifts. The lifts installed on
those vehicles must be certified as meeting FMVSS No. 403, must be
installed according to the lift manufacturer's instructions, and must
continue to meet all of the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 403
after installation. The standard also requires that specific
information be made available to lift users.
Recognizing that the usage patterns of platform lifts used in
public transit differ from those of platform lifts for individual
(i.e., private) use, the agency established separate requirements for
public use lifts and private use lifts. FMVSS No. 404, S4.1.1 requires
that the lift on each lift-equipped bus, school bus and multipurpose
passenger vehicle other than a motor home with a gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR) more than
[[Page 72328]]
4,536 kg (10,000 lb) must be certified as meeting all applicable public
use lift requirements set forth in FMVSS No. 403. FMVSS No. 404, S4.1.2
requires the lift on each lift-equipped vehicle with a GVWR of 4,536 kg
(10,000 lb) or less to be certified to either the public use or private
use lift requirements set forth in FMVSS No. 403. Stricter requirements
apply to vehicles with public use lifts than to vehicles with private
use lifts, as public use lifts generally are subject to more stress and
cyclic loading and will be used by more numerous and varied
populations.
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, which scheduled the standards to become effective on
December 27, 2004.
October 1, 2004 Final Rule
On October 1, 2004, in response to petitions for reconsideration of
its December 27, 2002 final rule, the agency published a final rule in
the Federal Register revising FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404. Among the changes
made by the October 1, 2004 final rule, the agency amended the
requirements for lighting on public use lifts, edge guard requirements,
and the wheelchair test device specifications (69 FR 58843).
On December 23, 2004, the agency published an interim final rule in
the Federal Register delaying the compliance date until April 1, 2005
for FMVSS No. 403 and July 1, 2005 for FMVSS No. 404 (69 FR 76865). On
July 15, 2005, the agency published in the Federal Register a denial of
petitions for reconsideration of its October 1, 2004 final rule (70 FR
40917). The July 15, 2005 document did not address the petitions
received from the Blue Bird Body Company (Blue Bird), the School Bus
Manufacturers Technical Council (SBMTC), which represents school bus
manufacturers (including Blue Bird), and the Manufacturers Council of
Small School Buses (MCSSB), an affiliate of the National Truck
Equipment Association formed to represent the interest of small
manufacturers, requesting changes in the required level of lighting on
public use lift platforms, as that issue was outside the scope of the
October 2004 final rule. The notice stated that the agency would treat
the documents as petitions for rulemaking and respond in a separate
notice. Today's notice addresses the issue raised by the Blue Bird,
SBMTC and MCSSB petitions.
Petitions for Rulemaking
Since that time, NHTSA received three additional petitions for
rulemaking seeking revisions to FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404. Specifically,
we received petitions from Maxon Lift Corporation (Maxon), Ricon
Corporation (Ricon) and the Lift-U Division of Hogan Manufacturing,
Inc. (LIFT-U), all of which are platform lift manufacturers. The
petitioners requested that the agency amend: (A) The control panel
switch requirements in S6.7.6.2 of FMVSS No. 403 so that lift controls
in locations remote from the driver's seating position are not subject
to the illumination requirements in S5.3 of FMVSS No. 101; (B) the
threshold warning signal requirements in S6.1.4 of FMVSS No. 403 to
permit warning lights to be mounted in a location clearly visible in
reference to the lift; (C) the threshold warning signal requirements in
S6.1.4 and S6.1.6 of FMVSS No. 403 to clarify the units of measurement
and minimum required luminance at the designated measurement point; (D)
the threshold warning test in S7.4 of FMVSS No. 403 to include a
performance test for warning systems using infrared and other sensor
technologies; (E) the wheelchair test device specification in S7.1.2 of
FMVSS No. 403 to include anti-tip devices; (F) the wheelchair retention
device impact test specifications in S7.7 of FMVSS No. 403 to permit
use of a loaded wheelchair test device; and (G) the requirements for
platform lighting on public use lifts in S4.1.5 of FMVSS No. 404 to
reduce the required illumination levels to those specified by the ADA
and FTA. The issues raised by petitioners are addressed below in
Section II of this notice.
Technical Changes
In Section III of this notice, the agency proposes additional
technical changes to FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 designed to further clarify
these standards, including revisions to: (A) S7 of FMVSS No. 403 to
require performance of the handrail test in S7.12 on a lift/vehicle
combination rather than on a test jig; (B) Figure 2 in FMVSS No. 403 to
make it consistent with the threshold beacon warning requirements in
S6.1.6; (C) the control panel switch requirements in S6.7.4 of FMVSS
No. 403; and (D) the Interlock Requirements and Test Procedures in
S6.10.2.4, S6.10.2.5, S6.10.2.6, S6.10.2.7, S7.5 and S7.6 of FMVSS No.
403.
November 3, 2005 Interpretation of S7.4 of FMVSS No. 403
In Section IV of this notice, the agency discusses an
interpretation of S7.4 of FMVSS No. 403, dated November 3, 2005, issued
to Maxon. The November 3 interpretation clarified specific procedures
that should be performed as part of the threshold warning signal test.
Although the agency has decided against revising the language of S7.4,
we include a discussion of the matter in this notice to ensure wide-
spread dissemination of its interpretation.
II. Petitions for Rulemaking
A. Amend the Control Panel Switch Requirements in S6.7.6.2 of FMVSS No.
403 So That Lift Controls in a Location Remote From the Driver's
Seating Position Are Not Subject to the Illumination Requirements in
S5.3 of FMVSS No. 101
A petition for rulemaking was received from Maxon, in which it
requested that the agency revise the control panel switch requirements
in S6.7.6.2 of FMVSS No. 403 so that lift controls located outside the
immediate vicinity of the driver's seating position are not subject to
the illumination requirements in S5.3 of FMVSS No. 101. S6.7.6.2
requires that public use lifts have characters illuminated in
accordance with S5.3 of FMVSS No. 101 when the vehicle's headlights are
illuminated. S5.3.2.2(a)-(b) of FMVSS No. 101 requires that controls
provide adjustable illumination to provide at least two levels of
brightness, one of which is barely discernible to a driver who has
adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions.
Maxon stated that it is not reasonable for the agency to apply the
illumination requirements in S5.3 of FMVSS 101 to lift controls on
public use lifts that are not located near the driver's seat. Maxon
stated that, even in dark ambient road conditions, when a driver gets
up from his seat to be near the lift during operation, the interior
lights of the vehicle likely will be on and will ruin the driver's dark
adaptation. The petition noted that, even if the vehicle's interior
lights are off, the platform lights required by FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404
are bright enough to ruin a driver's dark adaptation.
Agency's response: The agency tentatively agrees with Maxon. The
purpose of applying the illumination requirements in S5.3 of FMVSS No.
101 to public use lifts is to prevent illuminated lift controls located
in the area of the driver's seat from distracting a driver who has
adapted to dark
[[Page 72329]]
ambient roadway conditions. Although the current language in S6.7.6.2
of FMVSS No. 403 does not address the issue of control location, the
agency never intended the more stringent illumination requirements
applicable to dashboard controls and displays to apply to lift controls
not located in the vicinity of the driver. Accordingly, we propose
amending S6.7.6.2 to clarify that only public use lift controls located
within the portion of the passenger compartment specified in S5.3.4(a)
of FMVSS No. 101 (i.e., the portion of the passenger compartment which
is forward of a transverse vertical plane 110 mm rearward of the
manikin ``H'' point with the driver's seat in its rearmost driving
position) must have characters that are illuminated in accordance with
S5.3 of that standard, when the vehicle's headlights are illuminated.
However, to prevent errors in operation during dark conditions, NHTSA
believes that lift controls located away from the driver's seat should
be illuminated in some fashion. We therefore are proposing to amend
S6.7.6.2 also to require that lift controls located outside the portion
of the passenger compartment specified in S5.3.4(a) of FMVSS No. 101
must have a means for illuminating the characters to make them visible
under daylight and nighttime conditions.
B. Amend the Threshold Warning Signal Requirements in S6.1.4 of FMVSS
No. 403 To Permit Warning Lights To Be Mounted in a Location Clearly
Visible in Reference to the Lift
Maxon petitioned the agency also to amend the threshold warning
signal location requirements in S6.1.4 of FMVSS No. 403. S6.1.4
requires, in part, that the visual warning signal be installed such
that it does not require more than a 15 degree side-to-
side head rotation as viewed by a passenger in a wheelchair backing
onto the platform from the interior of the vehicle. In its petition,
Maxon stated that this location requirement does not indicate whether
NHTSA intends a passenger to use peripheral vision to satisfy the
standard. If not, it took the position that warning signals would need
to be installed on the opposite side of the bus. The visibility of the
warning signals in that location might be blocked by a chair, person or
structure within the bus, and wiring associated with the lights would
need protection from cutting and other damage. Maxon requested that the
warning signal requirements of S6.1.4 be amended to permit warning
lights to be mounted in a location clearly visible in reference to the
lift, which presumably would result in more options for locating the
warning signal where passengers will see it.
Agency response: The location requirements for a threshold warning
signal in S6.1.4 of FMVSS No. 403 were adopted from Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE) J2093, Design Considerations For Wheelchair
Lifts For Entry To or Exit From a Personally Licensed Vehicle (SAE
J2093), which provides that ``the visual warning shall be located such
that it can be seen by a person backing onto the lift wherever the lift
is installed.'' SAE J2093 requires that an unobstructed line-of sight
pathway must exist between the warning signal and the general area
where a passenger transitions from the vehicle floor to the lift
platform. The SAE requirement permits the warning signal to be located
on the vehicle or the lift, provided a clear line-of-sight exists.
In promulgating S6.1.4, NHTSA modified SAE J2093 to include
additional language designed to address the safety needs of persons in
powered wheelchairs, who often have limited side-to-side head movement,
and of passengers who transverse onto the lift platform in a forward
direction. Specifically, S6.1.4 includes a requirement not found in SAE
J2093 that the warning signal be installed such that it does not
require more than 15 degrees side-to-side head rotation as
viewed by a passenger backing onto the platform from the interior of
the vehicle and contains a similar head rotation limitation applicable
to passengers traveling forward onto the platform. However, S6.1.4 does
not specify the position from which the warning signal must be viewed;
whether the measurement is a line-of-sight measurement or whether
peripheral vision may be used; or a reference point for determining the
15 degrees side-to-side head rotation. Consequently, the
agency acknowledges that the language added by NHTSA to SAE J2093
created ambiguity in the warning signal location requirement. To
eliminate this ambiguity, we propose amending S6.1.4 to revert to
language similar to that which appears in SAE J2093.
The agency would prefer to define the threshold warning signal
requirement generally, rather than in specific geographic terms, due to
the many variables that may affect a passenger's line-of-sight,
including variation in vehicle type, lift design and a passenger's
visual acuity. Even a clear line-of-sight between a passenger backing
onto the lift and a warning signal does not ensure that a passenger
will see the signal, as in the case of a passenger looking away from
the signal or who has a visual impairment may not see it. For this
reason, S6.1.3 requires public use lifts to have both visual and
audible warnings. Nevertheless, we believe that specifying a point in
S6.1.4 from which the warning signal must be viewed will eliminate
confusion stemming from the language ``as viewed by a passenger backing
onto the platform from the interior of the vehicle.'' Accordingly, we
propose to amend S6.1.4 also to provide that the point from which the
warning signal must be visible will be 914 mm (3 ft) above the center
of the threshold area as shown in Figure 2 of that Standard. The
proposed revision will allow the threshold warning beacon to be mounted
on the vehicle or the interior portion of the lift as long as there is
a clear line-of-sight between the beacon and the point 914 mm (3 ft)
above the center of the threshold warning area.
C. Amend the Threshold Warning Signal Requirements in S6.1.4 and S6.1.6
of FMVSS No. 403 To Clarify the Units of Measurement and Minimum
Required Luminance at the Designated Measurement Point
Ricon also petitioned the agency to amend the threshold warning
signal requirements in S6.1.4 and S6.1.6. S6.1.4 provides, among other
things, that the visual warning required by S6.1.2 and S6.1.3 must be a
flashing red beacon with a minimum intensity of 20 candela. S6.1.6
provides that the intensity of the visual warning required by S6.1.4 is
measured at the location 914 mm (3ft) above the center of platform
threshold area. Ricon stated in its petition that, after discussions
with industry suppliers of lighting equipment, it has confirmed that
``candela'' is a measurement of output at the source, not of output
measured a specified distance from the source. Ricon suggested that the
correct terminology for the measurement of luminous intensity at a
specified distance from the source either should be ``lux'' or ``foot-
candles.'' On the basis of its discussions with industry suppliers and
its own analysis of what it characterized as the ``worst-case condition
(i.e., Public Use--Motor Coach applications),'' Ricon suggested also
that NHTSA replace the ``minimum intensity of 20 candelas'' language in
S6.1.4 with ``minimum intensity of 3.0 Lux (.27 foot candles).''
According to the petitioner, this change would negate the need for any
change in the language of S6.1.6.
Agency response: We agree with Ricon that the requirement in S6.1.4
of a beacon with a minimum intensity of 20 candelas provides a
measurement of minimum luminous intensity at the
[[Page 72330]]
source and that foot-candles or Lux (lm/ft2) would be the correct unit
of measurement of the density of light that falls on a surface. As
discussed above, NHTSA originally based its threshold warning signal
requirements on SAE J2093, which provides in part that a visual
threshold warning signal ``shall be a flashing red beacon of a minimum
21 candlepower (candlepower is luminous intensity expressed in
candelas) and be located such that it can be seen by a person backing
onto the lift wherever the lift is installed.'' Unlike S6.1.6, the SAE
requirement does not specify a measurement point. Thus, when the agency
adopted FMVSS No. 403, it did not include in S6.1.4 or S6.1.6 the
minimum criteria necessary to measure the illuminance or light density
required at the measurement point specified in S6.1.6.
The location of a warning beacon, its distance from the measurement
point and the illuminance level necessary at the measurement point to
alert passengers all are factors that vary from vehicle to vehicle.
Consequently, it would be quite difficult for us to identify in S6.1.6
a universally applicable measuring point from which to assess a
beacon's compliance with the 20 candela minimum intensity requirement
in S6.1.4. Accordingly, to eliminate the problem of specifying
appropriate units and an acceptable minimum illuminance at the
measurement point, the agency proposes to amend S6.1.6 to bring the
requirement in line with SAE J2093, the standard on which it was based.
Specifically, to ensure that passengers recognize when a warning beacon
is flashing, S6.4.2 would continue to require that the beacon have a
minimum luminous intensity of 20 candelas. However, the agency proposes
to eliminate from S6.1.6 the current measurement at the measurement
point requirement and, instead, replace it with a more general
visibility requirement, consistent with our proposed revision to
S6.1.4, discussed above in Section II. B. of this Notice, entitled
Amend the Threshold Warning Signal Requirements in S6.1.4 of FMVSS No.
403 To Permit Warning Lights To Be Mounted In a Location Clearly
Visible In Reference To the Lift. Specifically, the agency proposes new
language for S6.1.4 providing that the intensity of the audible warning
and the visibility of the visual warning required by S6.1.2 and S6.1.3
are measured/observed at a location 914 mm (3 ft) above the center of
the platform threshold area detailed in Figure 2 of the standard.
D. Amend the Threshold Warning Test in S7.4 of FMVSS No. 403 To Include
a Performance Test for Warning Systems Using Infrared and Other Sensor
Technologies
In its petition, LIFT-U requests that we amend the specifications
for the threshold warning signal test to include a performance test for
threshold sensors that do not detect weight. S7.4.2 details the
performance test for demonstrating compliance with S6.1.2 and S6.1.3.
It specifies the use of the unloaded power wheelchair test device
specified in S7.1.2. The test procedure consists of maneuvering one
front wheel of the unloaded test device onto any portion of the
threshold area defined in S4 of FMVSS 403 while the lift platform is at
the vehicle floor level loading position. The platform then is moved
down until the alarm is actuated. The wheel of the test device is
removed from the threshold area to deactivate the alarm and the
vertical distance between the platform and the threshold area is
measured to determine whether the distance is greater than 25 mm (1
in).
LIFT-U acknowledged that the test prescribed in S7.4, which calls
for use of an unoccupied test device, is effective for validating
sensor technologies that sense weight, such as pressure sensitive mats.
However, the petitioner stated that the unoccupied test device may not
be suitable for testing the compliance of threshold warning
technologies that do not use weight as a detection criterion, such as
infrared and other sensors. LIFT-U pointed out that S6.1 does not
specify use of a particular threshold warning system required to detect
a passenger in the threshold area of a lift and that there are many
sensor technologies that are effective for detecting people in safety
applications. LIFT-U stated also that NHTSA has made clear in its
commentary and letters of interpretation relating to FMVSS 403 that the
purpose the threshold warning required by S6.1 is to detect and alert a
passenger entering the threshold area when the platform lift is not in
proper position. Because its infrared technology accomplishes the
purpose of S6.1, LIFT-U requested that we revise S7.4 to include a
performance test that would permit warning systems with sensors that do
not detect weight to demonstrate compliance with S6.1.2 and S6.1.3.
Specifically, the petitioner suggested that NHTSA adopt a test that is
substantially identical to the current performance requirement with the
addition of an occupant in the wheelchair test device.
Agency Response: The agency grants LIFT-U's petition and is
proposing to revise S7.4 to include a performance test to enable
threshold warning systems using infrared and other technologies to
demonstrate compliance with S6.1 and S6.3. When NHTSA adopted S7.4,
infrared-based sensor systems for platform lifts did not exist.
However, as currently drafted, S7.4 does not limit the technologies
permitted under the agency's threshold-warning systems requirement only
to pressure sensitive mats. Instead, NHTSA originally mandated use of
the unoccupied wheelchair test device for the threshold warning
performance test because its downward force triggers weight-based
warning systems and its structure triggers light beam-based warning
systems. Use of the wheelchair test device also reduces the need for
additional test fixtures and represents the most common mobility device
accommodated by platform lifts. Additionally, when one front wheel of
the unloaded test device is placed on the platform, it exerts a
relatively low downward force (approximately 11.3 kg (25 pounds)) and
has a contact area/foot-print sufficient to assure that the warning
system will detect a passenger using a wheelchair, cane or walker, or
even a small child without a mobility aid, who may be preparing to
board the platform from the vehicle floor.
While S7.4 is broad enough to encompass more than just weight-based
warning systems, we do not want to limit the technologies that may be
used to meet this performance standard. Use of warning systems with
infrared and other sensor technologies to comply with S6.1.2 and S6.1.3
is consistent with the purpose of the threshold warning requirements to
protect passengers from moving onto a lift platform from the interior
of a vehicle when it is not safe to do so. NHTSA therefore is proposing
to amend the test procedure in S7.4 to allow a human representative of
a 5th percentile female, as specified in FMVSS No. 208, S29.1(f) and
S29.2, to be present in the wheelchair test device during the threshold
warning test. We selected the 5th percentile female as it is
representative of the smallest human subject that properly can occupy
the wheelchair test device, which is an adult size powered wheelchair.
A 5th percentile female seated in the wheelchair test device increases
from approximately 11.3 kg (25 pounds) to approximately 18.1 kg (40
pounds) the force exerted by the front wheel of the test device on the
lift platform. However, NHTSA does not believe that this increase in
weight will detract from the effectiveness of the test to assess the
[[Page 72331]]
compliance of weight-based warning systems, as a pressure sensitive mat
with 40 lb threshold for actuation still will detect a passenger using
a mobility aid or a small child without a mobility aid who may be
boarding the lift platform from the vehicle floor. If a lift
manufacturer chooses to certify to S6.1.2 and S6.1.3 with a human
representative of a 5th percentile female in the S7.4 test procedure,
the manufacturer shall select this option by the time it certifies the
lift and may not thereafter select a different test option for the
lift.
E. Amend the Wheelchair Test Device Specification in S7.1.2 of FMVSS
No. 403 To Include Anti-tip Devices
Ricon petitioned the agency to amend the wheelchair test device
specification in S7.1.2 of FMVSS No. 403 to include anti-tipping
devices. The specification set forth in S7.1.2 currently does not
permit the wheelchair test device to be outfitted with an anti-tipping
device. In its petition, Ricon states that it is common industry
practice to equip powered wheelchairs with an anti-tipping feature,
especially if the wheelchair is to be used in public transportation.
Ricon states also that the addition of this feature to S7.1.2 will make
the test device more representative of current industry standards.
Agency response: The agency denies Ricon's request that the
wheelchair test device specification set forth in S7.1.2 of FMVSS No.
403 be amended to include anti-tipping devices. The wheelchair test
device is used in the wheelchair retention device impact tests
specified in S7.7 to determine whether a lift's wheelchair retention
equipment complies with S6.4.7.1 and S6.4.7.2. It also is used in the
inner roll stop tests specified in S7.8 to assess whether its inner
roll stops comply with the requirements in S6.4.8.3. In these tests,
the test device evaluates the ability of the wheelchair retention
device and inner roll stop to prevent the wheelchair from rolling over
the outer and inner edges of the platform. Neither test is designed
specifically to simulate real world operating conditions.
When the means of retaining a wheelchair test device is an outer
barrier, the addition of anti-tipping bars limits the climbing ability
of the test device and decreases the utility of the impact test. The
agency notes also that a user can rotate anti-tipping devices to an
``up'' position, which renders them ineffective, or easily remove them.
Additionally, not all wheelchairs used on platform lifts are equipped
with anti-tipping devices. For these reasons, the agency believes that
the addition of anti-tip devices to S7.1.2 would not necessarily make
the wheelchair test device more representative of a real world
operating environment, but would reduce the effectiveness of the
compliance tests.
F. Amend the Wheelchair Retention Impact Test Specifications in S7.7 of
FMVSS No. 403 To Permit Use of a Loaded Wheelchair Test Device
Ricon petitioned the agency also to amend the wheelchair retention
impact test requirements in S7.7 of FMVSS No. 403 to permit the
addition of weight to the wheelchair test device. S7.7 currently does
not permit the wheelchair test device to be loaded during the
wheelchair retention device impact test. In support of its petition,
Ricon submitted a technical analysis indicating that the center of
gravity of an unloaded wheelchair changes significantly with respect to
the lift upon impact with an outer barrier serving as a wheelchair
retention device. Ricon found that, in combination with the continued
forward motion of the drive wheels, this change in the center of
gravity upon impact with the outer barrier causes the test device to
flip backward, resulting in failure of the impact test. Ricon's
analysis indicated that this occurrence is unrelated to the height of
the outer barrier. On the basis of its analysis, Ricon concluded that
the addition of weight (it recommended a load of 110 pounds (50
kilograms) to simulate a 5th percentile female occupant) to the seat of
the wheelchair test device during the impact test will prevent the
wheelchair from flipping backward after impact with the test barrier
and make the test more representative of real world conditions.
Agency Response: The agency grants Ricon's petition to propose
amending the wheelchair retention impact test specifications to add
weight to the seat of the wheelchair test device during the impact test
specified in S7.7. This test examines whether a wheelchair test device
will roll over or plow through a platform's wheelchair retention device
upon impact at different speeds and wheelchair directions. Data from
recent testing performed by NHTSA confirms the results of the technical
analysis submitted by Ricon. Adding a low profile weight to the seat of
the wheelchair test device will help stabilize it during both the
wheelchair retention and inner roll stop impact tests. Adding weight to
the wheelchair test device, however, also will increase the force with
which the test device strikes the barrier being tested, which could
cause some currently acceptable barriers to fail. Therefore, NHTSA
proposes an amendment to S7.7 to permit, but not require, the addition
of a 50 kilogram (110 pound) weight to the seat of the wheelchair test
device, distributed evenly and symmetrically, during testing. This load
will provide some additional stability and, in most cases, will prevent
the wheelchair test device from falling backwards after impact with the
wheelchair retention barrier. If a lift manufacturer chooses to certify
to S6.4.7 with a 50 kilogram weight in the seat of the wheelchair test
device in the S7.7 test procedure, the manufacturer shall select this
option by the time it certified the lift and may not thereafter select
a different test option.
The petition from Ricon and our recent testing prompted the agency
to consider revising other aspects of the wheelchair retention device
and inner roll stop tests specified in S7.7 and S7.8. Our testing
indicated that during forward impact tests on wheelchair retention and
roll stop devices, even a loaded wheelchair test device sometimes fell
backwards on the platform or remained upright, but without all four
wheels in contact with the platform. During some rearward outer barrier
impact tests, the wheelchair test device climbed the outer barrier and
went off the platform.
Technically, these outcomes constitute failures of the wheelchair
retention test specified in S7.7 and the inner roll stop test specified
in S7.8. We believe that the outcomes were caused by the continued
application of power to the drive wheels of the wheelchair test device
after impact.
In the case of wheelchair retention device and inner roll stop
impact tests, the wheelchair test device is used primarily as a barrier
evaluator. It tests whether the wheelchair test device will plow
through or roll over the barrier when striking it at specific speeds.
We believe that it could be difficult to design wheelchair retention
devices and inner roll stops that protect wheelchair passengers from
all possible situations without interfering with the normal operation
of the lift. We also believe that it is sufficient to ensure that the
strength and configuration of wheelchair retention devices and inner
roll stops are such that wheelchairs will not plow through or roll over
them. With such systems in place and in typical real world situations,
occupied wheelchairs will not be moving at high rates of speed on the
platform, occupants will terminate drive power upon impact with a
barrier, and occupied wheelchairs will be retained on the platform
without falling over.
[[Page 72332]]
Thus, the technical failures described in Ricon's petition and
replicated in our testing appear to be more a function of current test
methods than the inadequacy of the wheelchair retention device or inner
roll stop being tested.
Consequently, the agency is proposing amendments to the test
specifications in S7.7 and S7.8 to provide for termination of the
wheelchair drive motors via the wheelchair controller after the initial
impact of any portion of the wheelchair test device with the barrier.
These tests currently require that a test device remain powered
following the impact with a barrier. However, maintaining power to the
test device after the impact not only contributes to the technical
failures discussed above (i.e., those unrelated to the adequacy of the
outer barrier or inner roll stop being tested), but also may result in
testing inconsistencies, due to differences in the drive wheel torque
and stall rates of some test devices.
Terminating power during the wheelchair retention and inner roll
stop impact tests will stabilize the wheelchair test device after
impact and thereby help prevent such technical failures and related
damage to the wheelchair test device and/or lift. At the same time, the
proposed amendment will not reduce significantly the force with which
the test device strikes the barrier or otherwise compromise the
effectiveness of the tests. In addition, removing power to the drive
motors via the wheelchair controller rather than by terminating power
at the batteries will prevent the automatic parking brakes of the test
device from engaging, which could undermine the integrity of the tests.
As these tests are complete after impact, NHTSA proposes amending
S6.4.7 to strike the current requirement that the wheelchair test
device remain upright with all of its wheels in contact with the
platform surface following impact. Instead, NHTSA proposes to revise
S6.4.7 to provide that a wheelchair retention device passes the impact
test if, after impact, the wheelchair test device remains supported by
the platform surface with none of the axles of its wheels extending
beyond the plane perpendicular to the platform reference plane (Figure
1) which passes through the edge of the platform surface that is
traversed when entering or exiting the platform from the ground level
loading position. The proposed test criteria references axles rather
than wheels to prevent the occurrence of another type of technical
failure (i.e., test failure unrelated to the adequacy of the barrier)
during rearward testing, when the large wheels of the wheelchair test
device may rest on the platform and touch the outer barrier with tires
extending beyond the plane after impact.
On the same basis, NHTSA proposes amending S6.4.8.3 to provide that
an inner roll stop passes the impact portion of the test if the front
wheels of the wheelchair test device do not extend beyond the plane
that is perpendicular to the platform reference plane (Figure 1) and
which passes through the edge of the platform where the roll stop is
located when the lift is at ground level loading position.
G. Amend the Requirements for Platform Lighting on Public Lifts in
S4.1.5 of FMVSS No. 404 To Reduce the Illumination Levels to Those
Specified by the ADA and FTA
Blue Bird, the SBMTC and the MCSSB requested that the agency amend
S4.1.5 to reduce the required platform illumination levels to those
specified by the ADA and FTA.\2\ S4.1.5 currently requires that public
use lifts have a light or set of lights that provides at least 54 lm/
m2 (5 lm/ft2) of luminance on all portions of the
surface of the platform, throughout the range of passenger operation.
S4.1.5 requires also that, at ground level, all portions of the lift's
unloading ramp have at least 11 lm/m2 (1 lm/sqft). The
platform lighting requirements in FMVSS No. 404 apply to public-use
lifts installed on vehicles with a GVWR greater than 4536 kg (10,000
pounds), including motor coaches, transit buses and school buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The ADA lighting specification was based on existing Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) lighting requirements set forth in 49
CFR 609.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 38.31 of the ADA Accessibility Specifications for
Transportation Vehicles requires 2 lm/sqft of illumination on the lift
platform at floor level and 1 lm/sqft of illumination on the lift
platform or ramp at ground level. While S4.1.5 of FMVSS No. 404 and
Section 38.31 of the ADA Accessibility Specifications impose lighting
requirements for platforms or ramps at ground level that are identical,
S4.1.5 imposes a platform lighting requirement, throughout the range of
operation, that is more than 2\1/2\ times greater than that required by
the ADA.
In support of its request, the MCSBB argues that the ADA platform
lighting requirements have been in effect for some time and appear to
be reasonable. It therefore contends that continuing to require
compliance with the higher lighting requirements set forth in S4.1.5
seems ``quite excessive and unjustified.'' Blue Bird, the MCSBB, and
the SBMTC all state that imposing lighting requirements in excess of
those required by the ADA could have adverse safety effects, including
a potential burn risk to users, distraction to oncoming drivers and
glare in the eyes of users. The SBMTC also states that the higher
luminance level requirements could place a drain on a vehicle's battery
during lift operation, which typically occurs with the vehicle's engine
shut off. Additionally, Blue Bird notes that the December 27, 2002
Final Rule identifies the ADA and FTA as sources for the platform
lighting requirements set forth in S4.1.5. Yet, as discussed above,
S4.1.5 adopted a platform lighting standard that, in parts, far exceeds
ADA and FTA standards.
Agency Response: The agency grants the petitions of Blue Bird, the
SBMTC and the MCSSB to propose amending S4.1.5 to reduce the required
platform illumination levels to those specified by the ADA and FTA. The
lighting requirements in S4.1.5 were based, generally, on guidelines
and requirements that specified lighting levels for similar access
areas in different modes of public transport. For example, the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) Human Factors Design Guide \3\ provides
for a minimum illumination level on corridors of approximately 110 lm/
m2 or 110 Lux (10.2 lm/ft2 or 10.2 foot-candle).
Similar guidelines identify a suggested illumination level of as much
as 100 lm/m2 or 100 Lux (9.3 lm/ft2 or 9.3 foot-
candle) for general lighting in corridors, stairs and other access
areas. Although not specific to lift platforms, the lighting guidelines
and requirements applicable to corridors and stairs are relevant to
lift platforms, as corridors, stairs and platform lifts all are types
of access areas. Given the lighting requirements applicable to these
comparable access areas, the agency therefore believes it is not
accurate to describe as ``excessive'' or ``unjustified'' the
requirement in S4.5.1 that a platform lift be illuminated by at least
54 lm/m2 (5 lm/ft2), throughout the range of
passenger operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration Human Factors Design Guide for acquisitions of
Commercial-off-the-shelf subsystems, non-developmental items, and
developmental systems, January 15, 1996, DOT/FAA/CT-96/1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That being said, Blue Bird is correct in noting that NHTSA's
December 27, 2002 Final Rule identifies the ADA and FTA as the sources
for the platform lighting requirements set forth in S4.1.5, even though
S4.5.1's illumination requirements, in parts, exceed ADA and FTA
lighting specifications significantly. Additionally, in our
[[Page 72333]]
October 1, 2004, final rule (69 FR 58843), which responded to petitions
for reconsideration, NHTSA stated as one justification for moving the
lighting requirements from FMVSS No. 403 to FMVSS No. 404 and to
demonstrate that such a move would not impose an additional burden on
public use manufacturers--that ``public-use vehicle manufacturers
already must comply with ADA lighting standards, which require lighting
on doorways, step-wells, lifts and ramps.'' However, the platform
lighting requirements in FMVSS No. 404-and the ADA would need to be
coextensive in order to avoid placing an additional burden on
manufacturers by requiring that they comply both with the ADA and with
the more rigorous lighting requirements in FMVSS No. 404.
We note also that the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act \4\ would have required NHTSA to adopt industry and government
platform lighting standards, provided they were not impractical.\5\ In
retrospect, the extent to which the agency intended to adopt the FTA-
based ADA lighting standard applicable to public use lifts is unclear.
However, amending S4.1.5 to reduce the required platform illumination
levels to those specified by the ADA and FTA at this juncture would be
consistent with that Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
requires Federal agencies to use technical standards that are
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies when
such technical standards are available (see section 12(d) of Pub. L.
104-113) and are consistent with authorizing legislation of the
agencies.
\5\ As defined in OMB Circular A-119, Federal Participation in
the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in
Conformity Assessment Activities, ``impractical'' includes
circumstances in which such use would fail to serve the agency's
program needs; would be infeasible; would be inadequate,
ineffectual, inefficient, or inconsistent with agency mission; or
would impose more burdens, or would be less useful, than the use of
another standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, as a result of the petitions from Blue Bird, the SBMTC
and the MCSSB and for the reasons stated above, NHTSA is persuaded to
propose changing the minimum illumination required on lift platforms to
that required by the ADA and FTA. Additionally, in response to comments
received by the agency about the lack of a test procedure to
demonstrate compliance with the lighting requirement, NHTSA is
proposing to amend S4.5.1 to provide vehicle manufacturers with
guidance relative to platform illumination testing, which NHTSA
proposes should be done with a vehicle's engine shut off.
III. Technical Changes
A. Amend S7 of FMVSS No. 403 To Require Performance of the Handrail
Test in S7.12 on a Lift/Vehicle Combination Rather Than on a Test Jig
S6.4.9 of FMVSS No. 403 details the handrail requirements for
public and private use lifts. S6.4.9.8 of that standard provides that
``when tested in accordance with S7.12.1, there must be at least 38 mm
(1.5 inches) of clearance between each handrail and any portion of the
vehicle, throughout the range of passenger operation.'' In order to
measure this clearance, the lift must be mounted on a vehicle during
the test. However, the test conditions and procedures set forth in S7
currently permit the tests specified in S7.12 to be performed with a
lift installed on a test jig rather than on a vehicle. If performed on
a test jig, it is not possible to determine clearances between the
handrails and the vehicle during the test. NHTSA proposes to amend S7
of FMVSS No. 403 to require the handrail test to be performed on a
lift/vehicle combination.
B. Correct Figure 2 in FMVSS No. 403 To Make it Consistent With the
Threshold Beacon Warning Requirements in S6.1.6
It has come to NHTSA's attention that a dimension in Figure 2 is
incorrect. The height of the measurement point from which the intensity
of the threshold audible warning is measured and the threshold warning
beacon must be visible is identified as 919 mm. Because S6.1.6 provides
that this measurement point is 914 mm (3 feet), we are proposing to
replace Figure 2 with revised Figure 2, which shows a measurement point
of 914 mm (3 feet), consistent with the requirements of S6.1.6.
C. Clarify the Control Panel Switch Requirements in S6.7.4 of FMVSS No.
403
It has come to our attention through letters from lift
manufacturers in response to NHTSA's compliance testing that some
confusion exists about the control panel switch requirements in S6.7.4
of FMVSS 403. S6.7.4 provides that, except for the POWER function, the
control panel switches that control the stow (fold), deploy (unfold),
down (lower) and up (raise) functions must prevent the simultaneous
performance of more than one function. Commenters have indicated that
S6.7.4 does not specify what is required when two or more switches are
actuated simultaneously. To clarify what the standard requires, NHTSA
is proposing to amend S6.7.4 to provide that if an initial function is
actuated, then one or more other functions are actuated while the
initial function remains actuated, the platform must either continue in
the direction dictated by the initial function or stop. Compliance test
procedure TP-403-00, Laboratory Test Procedure for FMVSS No. 403,
Platform Lift Systems for Motor Vehicles addresses this issue and can
be viewed or obtained from the NHTSA Web site (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov).
D. Amend the Interlock Requirements and Test Procedure in S6.10.2.4,
S6.10.2.5, S6.10.2.6, S6.10.2.7, S7.5 and S7.6 of FMVSS No. 403
As a result of compliance testing and subsequent, related
communications from a lift manufacturer, it has come to NHTSA's
attention that some confusion exists about how the test that is
specified in S7.5 is to be used to verify compliance with the interlock
requirements in S6.10.2.5 (interlock to prevent vertical movement of
the lift unless the wheelchair retention device is deployed) and
S6.10.2.6 (interlock to prevent outer barrier deployment while barrier
area is occupied). Based on communications received by the agency, it
appears that some manufacturers believe that the portion of the test
procedure described in S7.5.2 applies only to the requirements of
S6.10.2.5 and that the portion of the procedure described in S7.5.3
applies only to S6.10.2.6. Consequently, NHTSA proposes revising and
renumbering these sections to reinforce the fact that S7.5.2 and S7.5.3
together constitute one test procedure used to determine compliance
with the interlock requirements in S6.10.2.5 as well as with the
interlock requirements in S6.10.2.6.
Confusion also exists about how the test that is specified in S7.6
and verifies compliance with the inner roll stop occupancy interlock
requirements and the inner roll stop non-deployment interlock
requirements applies to the inner roll stop requirements in S6.10.2.4.
Specifically, the test procedure set forth in S7.6.2 and S7.6.3 uses as
a reference point for determining the location at which the roll stop
``starts to deploy.'' By contrast, the inner roll stop non-deployment
interlock requirement set forth in S6.10.2.4 assesses compliance at
``the level where the inner roll stop is designed to deploy.'' At least
one manufacturer found the conflicting terminology between the test
procedure and this requirement incompatible. Consequently, NHTSA has
proposed revising S7.6.2 and S7.6.3 to replace
[[Page 72334]]
references to ``start to deploy'' with references to ``designed to
deploy,'' consistent with the requirement set forth in S6.10.2.4.
Additionally, to maintain symmetry between the outer barrier and inner
roll stop interlock test procedures, we have proposed revising and
renumbering these sections to reinforce the fact that S7.6.2 and S7.6.3
together constitute one test procedure used to determine compliance
with the interlock requirements set forth in both S6.10.2.4 and
S6.10.2.7.
NHTSA also is aware of additional confusion stemming from the
portion of the outer barrier interlock test procedure specified in
S7.5.2. The current test procedure detailed in S7.5.2 provides that the
platform should be stopped and its distance from the ground measured at
the location where the outer barrier begins to deploy to verify that it
is not greater than 75 mm (3 in). This measurement has little value
because NHTSA is concerned mainly that the outer barrier be fully
deployed by the time the platform is 75 mm (3 in) above the ground.
NHTSA proposes new language in S7.5.1.1 and S7.5.1.2 that provides for
the platform to be moved up until the outer barrier starts to deploy.
This maneuver will help to determine the edge where to place the wheel
of the wheelchair test device. The new proposed language then instructs
that the front wheel of the wheelchair test device be placed on the
edge of the outer barrier and that the platform be moved up until it
stops. If both interlocks are working correctly, the wheel of the
wheelchair test device will prevent the outer barrier from deploying,
the wheelchair test device wheel will not move vertically upward more
then 13 mm (0.5 in) and the platform will automatically stop before its
upper surface is greater than 75 mm (3 in) above the ground. If the
outer roll stop deploys and raises the wheelchair test device wheel off
the platform more than 13 mm (0.5 inches), the lift fails S6.10.2.6. If
the wheelchair test device wheel prevents the outer barrier from
deploying and the platform stops at a level greater than 75 mm (3 in)
above the ground, the lift fails S6.10.2.5.
It has come to NHTSA's attention that similar confusion exists with
respect to the inner roll stop interlock test detailed in S7.6.2.
S7.6.2 provides that the location where the inner roll stop starts to
deploy should be noted during testing. However, this location is of
little value when assessing compliance with S6.10.2.5, as NHTSA is
interested primarily in the location where the inner roll stop fully
deploys--not where it starts to deploy. Unlike the outer barrier, NHTSA
has no specification relative to the level at which inner roll stops
should deploy. The inner roll stop will fully deploy at different
levels depending on the lift design. Therefore, during testing, NHTSA
notes the location where the inner roll stop deploys fully on the
particular lift being tested, as well as when the wheel of the
wheelchair test device prevents deployment; the platform automatically
should stop before it goes beyond the location were the inner roll stop
deploys fully.
New proposed language in S7.6.2 and S7.6.3 now requires that the
location where the inner roll stop fully deploys should be noted. It
also requires that the platform be moved back to vehicle floor level
and then down until the inner roll stop starts to deploy. This maneuver
helps to determine the edge where the wheel of the wheelchair test
device must be placed. One front wheel of the wheelchair test device is
placed on the edge of the inner roll stop and the platform is moved
down until it automatically stops. If the inner roll stop deploys and
raises the wheelchair test device wheel vertically more than 13 mm (0.5
in), the lift fails S6.10.2.7. If the wheel of the wheelchair test
device prevents the inner roll stop from deploying and the platform
travels beyond the full deployment location previously noted, then the
lift fails S6.10.2.4. The lift passes both S6.10.2.4 and S6.10.2.7 if
inner roll stop does not deploy, does not raise the wheel of the
wheelchair test device vertically more than 13 mm (0.5 in) and the
platform automatically stops before it travels beyond the previously
noted location where the inner roll stop is designed to be fully
deployed.
IV. November 3, 2005 Interpretation
On November 3, 2005, we issued an interpretation letter of S7.4 of
FMVSS No. 403, addressed to Maxon. The November 3 interpretation
clarified specific procedures that should be performed as part of the
threshold warning signal test. Although the agency has decided against
revising the language of S7.4, we include a discussion of the matter in
this document to ensure wide-spread dissemination of the
interpretation.
In asking about the threshold warning requirements, the incoming
letter suggested that there was an apparent inconsistency between the
requirement and the associated test procedure. The agency explained, as
follows, that the specified test procedure for the threshhold warning
system is consistent with that requirement:
As part of FMVSS No. 403, the agency established a threshold
warning signal requirement for platform lifts in part to minimize
the risk of a lift user backing off a vehicle before a lift is
properly positioned. S6.1 of FMVSS No. 403 requires an appropriate
threshold warning signal to be activated when any portion of a
passenger's body or mobility aid occupies the platform threshold
area defined in S4 of that standard, and the platform is more than
25 mm (1 inch) below the vehicle floor reference plane. A platform
lift must meet this requirement when tested in accordance with S7.4
of the standard.
In your letter you stated that it is possible to design a
threshold warning system that ``will pass a test that is performed
as described in S7.4 and not completely fulfill the requirements of
S6.1.3''. You described a threshold warning system designed with an
optical sensor at the interior boundary of the platform threshold
area. You stated that such a system would activate the warning
signal only when a passenger is crossing the boundary of the
threshold at the same time as the platform is lower than 25 mm from
the vehicle floor. You further stated that such a system would not
activate a signal if a passenger were completely within the
threshold area when the platform reached the specified distance from
the vehicle floor. Your letter indicated that you believe that such
a system would ``pass'' the test procedure, but not comply fully
with the requirement.
A system as you described would not comply with the requirements
of S6.1.3 when tested as specified in S7.4. As stated above, S6.1
requires the appropriate warning signal to activate when tested in
accordance with S7.4. S7.4.2 specifies that, with the platform lift
at the vehicle floor loading position:
[P]lace one front wheel of the unloaded wheelchair test device
[specified in S7.1.2] on any portion of the threshold area defined
in S4. Move the platform down until the alarm is actuated. Remove
the test wheelchair wheel from the threshold area to deactivate the
alarm. Measure the vertical distance between the platform and the
threshold area and determine whether that distance is greater than
25 mm (1 in).
Thus, S7.4.2 specifies placing the front wheel of the test
device on any portion of the threshold area. As explained in 49 CFR
Sec. 571.4, the use of the term ``any'' in connection with a range
of values or set of items means generally, ``the totality of the
items or values, any one of which may be selected by the [agency]
for testing''. Accordingly, the procedure specified in S7.4.2
includes placement of the front wheel that could result in the
entire test device being within the threshold area prior to the
platform being lowered. This also includes placement that results in
a portion of the test device being on the platform.
Given the discussion above, a system such as you described would
not comply when tested under S7.4.2. As such, there is no
discrepancy between the requirement of S6.1.3 and the test procedure
specified in S7.4.
V. Proposed Compliance Date
The proposed amendments would be mandatory for purposes of
compliance
[[Page 72335]]
180 days after publication of a final rule. Optional compliance would
be permitted immediately upon publication of the final rule. We believe
these dates would be appropriate given that the amendments would be for
the purpose of clarifying the requirements of the standard and
providing further flexibility in compliance.
VI. Public Participation
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.\6\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 49 CFR 553.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please submit your comments by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 am and 5 pm Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: (202) 493-2251.
If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe)
file, we ask that the documents submitted be scanned using Optical
Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agency to search
and copy certain portions of your submissions.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Optical character recognition (OCR) is the process of
converting an image of text, such as a scanned paper document or
electronic fax file, into computer-editable text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT's
guidelines may be accessed at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/DataQualityGuidelines.pdf.
How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?
If you submit your comments by mail and 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. 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.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See 49 CFR 512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, you should submit a copy, from which you have deleted
the claimed confidential business information, to the Docket by one of
the methods set forth above.
Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?
We will consider all comments received before the close of business
on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent
possible, we will also consider comments received after that date. If a
comment is received too late for us to consider 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 materials placed in the docket for this document
(e.g., the comments submitted in response to this document by other
interested persons) at any time by going to http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. You may also
read the materials at the Docket Management Facility by going to the
street address given above under ADDRESSES. The Docket Management
Facility is open between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. It is not considered to be
significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
This document proposes amendments to FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 to
clarify the requirements of the standard and to provide further
flexibility in compliance. The impacts of the proposed 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). The amendments proposed by this document will not change the
costs and benefits in a quantifiable manner.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq., NHTSA has evaluated the effects of this action on small entities.
I hereby certify that this proposed rule would not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The NPRM does not
propose to impose new requirements but instead proposes amendments to
FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 to clarify the requirements of the standards and
to provide further flexibility in compliance.
Executive Order 13132
NHTSA has examined today's NPRM pursuant to Executive Order 13132
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that
the rulemaking would not have federalism implications because a final
rule, if issued, would not have ``substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.''
Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the preemptive effect
of today's rulemaking. NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in at
least two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety
Act contains an express preemptive provision: ``When a motor vehicle
safety standard is in effect under
[[Page 72336]]
this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may
prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same
aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment
only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this
chapter.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command that
preempts State law, not today's rulemaking, so consultation would be
inappropriate.
In addition to the express preemption noted above, the Supreme
Court has also recognized that State requirements imposed on motor
vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed by State tort law,
can stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of a NHTSA
safety standard. When such a conflict is discerned, the Supremacy
Clause of the Constitution makes their State requirements
unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861
(2000). NHTSA has not outlined such potential State requirements in
today's rulemaking, however, in part because such conflicts can arise
in varied contexts, but it is conceivable that such a conflict may
become clear through subsequent experience with today's standard and
test regime. NHTSA may opine on such conflicts in the future, if
warranted. See id. at 883-86.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this NPRM for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation
of this action would not have any significant impact on the quality of
the human environment.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the procedures established by 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. This NPRM would not establish any new information
collection requirements.
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), ``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.''
As discussed in the preamble to the December 2002 final rule, the
equipment standard was drafted to include or exceed all existing
government (FTA, ADA) and voluntary industry (e.g., SAE) standards. 67
FR 79416, 79438; December 27, 2002. Readers who are interested in the
source of the requirements in FMVSS No. 403 are referred to that
document. The agency included a table showing the source of each
requirement in FMVSS No. 403.
This document is not proposing to impose new requirements but is
instead proposing amendments to FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 to clarify the
requirements of the standards and to provide further flexibility in
compliance. As discussed earlier in this document, the proposal to
amend S4.1.5 of FMVSS No. 404 to reduce the required platform
illumination levels to those specified by the ADA and FTA is consistent
with the NTTAA.
Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (7) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive
effect of this proposed rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further
that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for
reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they
may file suit in court.
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 NPRM would not
result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector in excess of $100 million annually.
Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 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. This rulemaking is not subject to
the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as
defined in E.O. 12866.
Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001) applies to any
rulemaking that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as
defined under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have a significantly adverse
effect on the supply of, distribution of, or use of energy; or (2) that
is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. This rulemaking is
not subject to E.O. 13211.
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
isn't 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 proposal.
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
[[Page 72337]]
document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, 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, Motor vehicles, and Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA is proposing to amend 49
CFR part 571 as follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 571 of title 49 would continue
to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 571.403 would be amended by revising S6.1.4, S6.1.6,
S6.4.7.1, S6.4.8.3(a), S6.7.4, S6.7.6.2, S6.10.2.4, S6.10.2.5,
S6.10.2.6, S6.10.2.7, S7, S7.4.2, S7.5, S7.5.1, S7.5.2, S7.5.3, S7.6,
S7.6.1, S7.6.2, S7.6.3, S7.7.2.4, S7.7.2.5, S7.8.3, and Figure 2, and
by adding new S7.5.1.1 and S7.5.1.2, to read as follows:
Sec. 571.403 Standard No. 403; Platform lift systems for motor
vehicles.
* * * * *
S6.1.4 The visual warning required by S6.1.2 and S6.1.3 must be a
flashing red beacon as defined in SAE J578, June 95, must have a
minimum intensity of 20 candela, a frequency from 1 to 2 Hz, and must
be located within the interior of the vehicle such that it is visible
from a point 914 mm (3 ft) above the center of the threshold area (see
Figure 2) wherever the lift is installed and with any configuration of
the vehicle interior.
* * * * *
S6.1.6 The intensity of the audible warning and visibility of the
visual warning required by S6.1.2 and S6.1.3 is measured/observed at a
location 914 mm (3 ft) above the center of the platform threshold area.
(See Figure 2).
* * * * *
S6.4.7.1 Impact I. Except for platform lifts designed so that
platform loading takes place wholly over the vehicle floor, the lift
must have a means of retaining the test device specified in S7.1.2.
After impact, the test device must remain supported by the platform
surface with none of the axles of its wheels extending beyond the plane
perpendicular to the platform reference plane (Figure 1) and which
passes through the edge of the platform which is traversed when
entering or exiting the platform from the ground level loading position
throughout its range of passenger operation, except as provided in
S6.4.7.4. The lift is tested in accordance with S7.7 to determine
compliance with this section.
* * * * *
S6.4.8.3 * * *
(a) The front wheels of the test device specified in S7.1.2 from
extending beyond the plane that is perpendicular to the platform
reference plane (Figure 1) and which passes through the edge of the
platform where the roll stop is located when the lift is at ground
level loading position; and
* * * * *
S6.7.4 Except for the POWER function described in S6.7.2.1, the
control system specified in S6.7.2 must prevent the simultaneous
performance of more than one function. If an initial function is
actuated, then one or more other functions are actuated while the
initial function remains actuated, the platform must continue in the
direction dictated by the initial function or stop. Verification with
this requirement is made throughout the lift operations specified in
S7.9.3 through S7.9.8.
* * * * *
S6.7.6.2 Public use lifts. Public-use lift controls located within
the portion of the passenger compartment specified in S5.3.4(a) of
Standard No. 101 (Sec. 571.101), must have characters that are
illuminated in accordance with S5.3 of Standard No.101, when the
vehicle's headlights are illuminated. Public-use lift controls located
outside the portion of the passenger compartment specified in S5.3.4(a)
of Standard No. 101 (Sec. 571.101) must have means for illuminating
the characters to make them visible under daylight and nighttime
conditions.
* * * * *
S6.10.2.4 Movement of the platform up or down, throughout the range
of passenger operation, unless the inner roll stop required to comply
with S6.4.8 is deployed. When the platform reaches a level where the
inner roll stop is designed to fully deploy, the platform must stop
unless the inner roll stop has fully deployed. Verification with this
requirement is made by performing the test procedure specified in
S7.6.1.
S6.10.2.5 Movement of the platform up or down, throughout the range
of passenger operation, when the highest point of the platform surface
at the outer most platform edge is above a horizontal plane 75 mm (3
in) above the ground level loading position, unless the wheelchair
retention device required to comply with S6.4.7 is deployed throughout
the range of passenger operations. Verification of compliance is made
using the test procedure specified in S7.5.1.
S6.10.2.6 In the case of a platform lift that is equipped with an
outer barrier, vertical deployment of the outer barrier when it is
occupied by portions of the passenger's body or mobility aid throughout
the lift operation. When the platform stops, the vertical change in
distance of the horizontal plane (passing through the point of contact
between the wheelchair test device wheel(s) and the upper surface of
the outer barrier) must not be greater than 13 mm (0.5 in).
Verification of compliance with this requirement is made using the test
procedure specified in S7.5.1.
S6.10.2.7 Vertical deployment of the inner roll stop required to
comply with S6.4.8 when it is occupied by portions of a passenger's
body or mobility aid throughout the lift operations. When the platform
stops, the vertical change in distance of the horizontal plane (passing
through the point of contact between the wheelchair test device
wheel(s) and the upper surface of the inner roll stop or platform edge)
must not be greater than 13 mm (0.5 in). Verification of compliance
with this requirement is made using the test procedure specified in
S7.6.1.
* * * * *
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 S7.12 are performed on a
single lift and vehicle combination. The tests specified in S7.2, S7.3,
S7.5, S7.6, S7.7.1, S7.8 and S7.13 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.
* * * * *
S7.4.2 During the threshold warning test, the wheelchair test
device may be occupied by a human representative of a 5th percentile
female meeting the requirements of FMVSS 208, S29.1(f) and S29.2. If
present, the human subject
[[Page 72338]]
must be seated in the wheelchair test device and their feet supported
by the wheelchair foot rests which are adjusted properly for length and
in the down position (not elevated). The manufacturer shall select the
option by the time it certifies the lift and may not thereafter select
a different test option for the lift. Maneuver the lift platform to the
vehicle floor level loading position. Using the wheelchair test device
specified in S7.1.2, place one front wheel of the wheelchair test
device on any portion of the threshold area defined in S4. Move the
platform down until the alarm is actuated. Remove the test wheelchair
wheel from the threshold area to deactivate the alarm. Measure the
vertical distance between the platform and the threshold area and
determine whether that distance is greater than 25 mm (1 in).
* * * * *
S7.5 Outer barrier non-deployment interlock and occupied outer
barrier interlock test.
S7.5.1 Determine compliance with both S6.10.2.5 and S6.10.2.6 by
using the following single test procedure.
S7.5.1.1 Place the test jig or vehicle on which the lift is
installed on a flat, level, horizontal surface. Maneuver the platform
to the ground level loading position. Using the lift control, move the
lift upward until the point where the outer barrier fully deploys. Stop
the platform at that point and measure the vertical distance between
the highest point on the platform surface at the outer most edge and
the ground to determine whether the distance is greater than 75 mm (3
in.). Reposition the platform in the ground level loading position.
Locate the wheelchair test device specified in S7.1.2 on the platform.
If other wheelchair retention devices (e.g., a belt retention device)
prevent the front wheel of the wheelchair test device from accessing
the outer barrier when on the platform, the wheelchair test device may
be placed on the ground facing the entrance to the lift.
S7.5.1.2 Place one front wheel of the wheelchair test device on any
portion of the outer barrier. If the platform is too small to maneuver
one front wheel on the outer barrier, two front wheels may be placed on
the outer barrier. Note the distance between a horizontal plane
(passing through the point of contact between the wheelchair test
device wheel(s) and the upper surface of the outer barrier) and the
ground. Using the lift control, move the platform up until it stops.
Measure the vertical distance between the highest point of the platform
surface at the outer most edge and the ground to determine compliance
with S6.10.2.5. Measure the vertical change in distance of the
horizontal plane (passing through the point of contact between the
wheelchair test device wheel(s) and the upper surface of the outer
barrier) to determine compliance with S6.10.2.6.
S7.6 Inner roll stop non-deployment interlock and occupied inner
roll stop interlock test.
S7.6.1 Determine compliance with both S6.10.2.4 and S6.10.2.7 by
using the single test procedure in S7.6.2 and S7.6.3.
S7.6.2 Maneuver the platform to the vehicle floor level loading
position, and position the wheelchair test device specified in S7.1.2
on the platform with the front of the wheelchair test device facing the
vehicle. Using the lift control, move the platform down until the inner
roll stop fully deploys. Stop the lift and note that location.
S7.6.3 Reposition the platform at the vehicle floor level loading
position. Place one front wheel of the wheelchair test device on the
inner roll stop. If the platform is too small to maneuver one front
wheel on the inner roll stop, two front wheels may be placed on the
inner roll stop. Note the vertical distance between a horizontal plane
(passing through the point of contact between the wheelchair test
device wheel(s) and the upper surface of the inner roll stop) and the
ground. Using the lift control, move the platform down until it stops.
Compare the location of the platform relative to the location noted in
S7.6.2 to determine compliance with S6.10.2.4. Measure the vertical
change in distance of the horizontal plane (passing through the point
of contact between the wheelchair test device wheel(s) and the upper
surface of the inner roll stop) to determine compliance with S6.10.2.7.
* * * * *
S7.7.2.4 An optional 50 kg (110 pounds) of weight may be centered,
evenly distributed and secured in the seat of the wheelchair test
device to assist in stabilizing the wheelchair test device during
testing. The manufacturer shall select the option by the time it
certifies the lift and may not thereafter select a different test
option for the lift. Accelerate the test device onto the platform under
its own power such that the test device impacts the wheelchair
retention device at each speed and direction combination specified in
S7.7.2.5. Terminate power to the wheelchair test device by means of the
wheelchair controller after the initial impact of any portion of the
wheelchair test device with the wheelchair retention device. Note the
position of the wheelchair test device following each impact to
determine compliance with S6.4.7. If necessary, after each impact,
adjust or replace the footrests to restore them to their original
condition.
S7.7.2.5 The test device is operated at the following speeds, in
the following directions--
(a) At a speed of not less than 2.0 m/s (4.4 mph) and not more than
2.1 m/s (4.7 mph) in the forward direction.
(b) At a speed of not less than 1.75 m/s (3.9 mph) and not more
than 1.85 m/s (4.1 mph) in the rearward direction.
* * * * *
S7.8.3 An optional 50 kg (110 pounds) of weight may be centered,
evenly distributed and secured in the seat of the wheelchair test
device to assist in stabilizing the wheelchair test device during
testing. The manufacturer shall select the option by the time it
certifies the lift and may not thereafter select a different test
option for the lift. Accelerate the test device onto the platform such
that it impacts the inner roll stop at a speed of not less than 1.5 m/s
(3.4 mph) and not more than 1.6 m/s (3.6 mph). Terminate power to the
wheelchair test device by means of the wheelchair controller after the
initial impact of any portion of the wheelchair test device with the
inner roll stop. Determine compliance with S6.4.8.3 (a).
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 72339]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20DE07.012
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
[[Page 72340]]
* * * * *
3. Section 571.404 would be amended by revising S4.1.5 to read as
follows:
Sec. 571.404 Standard No. 404; Platform lift installations in motor
vehicles.
* * * * *
S4.1.5 Platform Lighting on public use lifts. Public-use lifts must
be provided with a light or set of lights that provide at least 22 lm/
m\2\ or 22 Lux (2 lm/ft\2\ or 2 foot-candles) of illumination on all
portions of the surface of the platform when the platform is at the
vehicle floor level. Additionally, a light or set of lights must
provide at least 11 lm/m\2\ or 11 Lux (1 lm/ft\2\ or 1 foot-candle) of
illumination on all portions of the surface of the platform and all
portions of the surface of the passenger-unloading ramp at ground
level. Illumination measurements are recorded with the vehicle engine
not running, with the vehicle/lift in an environment where there is no
apparent ambient light, with the sensor portion of the light meter
within 50 mm (2 inches) of the surface being measured and with a light
meter that has a range comparable to a minimum of 0 to 100 Lux, in
increments comparable to 1 Lux or less, an accuracy of 5 %
of the actual reading and a sampling rate of at least 2 Hz.
* * * * *
Issued: December 14, 2007.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 07-6146 Filed 12-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P