[Federal Register: August 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 169)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 50318-50321]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr31au07-32]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA-2007-28140 Notice 1]
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Denial of Petition for
Rulemaking
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Based on the agency's evaluation, the NHTSA denies a petition
for rulemaking from Ricon Corporation (Ricon) to amend S6.1/S7.4
(threshold warning signal requirement and related test procedure),
S6.10.2.3 (anti-stow interlock requirement) and S6.10.2.7/S7.6
(occupied inner roll stop interlock requirement and related test
procedure) of FMVSS No. 403. The NHTSA believes that the rulemaking is
unnecessary because granting the proposed amendments would not result
in a substantial increase in the effectiveness and safety benefit of
the requirements and related test procedures. The NHTSA also believes
that the current requirements and test procedures are appropriate and
objective ways of ensuring compliance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Non-Legal Issues: Contact Mr.
William D. Evans, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590, Telephone: (202) 366-2272, Facsimile: (202) 366-7002.
For Legal Issues: Contact Mr. Ed Glancy, Office of Chief Counsel,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone: (202) 366-2992, Facsimile: (202)
366-3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background: On December 27, 2002 NHTSA published in the Federal
Register a final rule, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 403 (67 FR 79416), Platform Lift Systems for Motor Vehicles. The
purpose of FMVSS No. 403 is to prevent injuries and fatalities to
passengers and bystanders during the operation of platform lifts
installed in motor vehicles. The standard is written to protect
standing passengers who may be aided by canes and walkers, as well as
persons seated in wheelchairs, scooters and other mobility aids. FMVSS
No. 403 became effective on April 1, 2005.
[[Page 50319]]
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).
Requirements in FMVSS No. 403 include S6.1/S7.4 (Threshold warning
signal requirement and related test procedure), S6.10.2.3 (Anti-stow
interlock requirement) and S6.10.2.7/S7.6 (Occupied inner roll stop
interlock requirement and related test procedure) which are the subject
of Ricon's petition for rulemaking.
Summary of Petition (S6.1/S7.4 Threshold Warning Signal Requirement and
Related Test Procedure)
The first issue addressed is Ricon's request to alter the test
procedures used to test the threshold warning signal requirement.
According to the petitioner, the changes to the test procedure would
better serve the intent of the regulation. Ricon states that the
purpose of the threshold warning system is to provide an audible and
visual warning signal when the lift platform is in an unsafe position
for boarding and that the threshold warning signal is intended to alert
passengers but does not physically restrain them. Ricon further states
that the threshold warning requirements in FMVSS No. 403 are based on
previous industry guidelines established by the California Department
of Rehabilitation and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)
Standards J2092 and J2093. Ricon states that the California requirement
was established as a result of accidents involving wheelchair-bound
passengers backing out of the vehicle when the lift platform was not at
vehicle floor level. Ricon notes that the threshold warning test in SAE
J2092 emphasizes active verbs and phrases, which stress the dynamic
nature of the test and make it clear that the recommendation's intent
is to detect unsafe movement through the threshold area. It is Ricon's
opinion that these tests contain an implied element of timeliness of
the warning so that the threshold warning system can detect, activate,
and warn with sufficient speed to protect the wheelchair passenger in
the worst-case situation of a wheelchair moving through the threshold
area. Therefore, Ricon requests that the FMVSS No. 403 test procedure
for the threshold warning signal requirement be changed to a dynamic
procedure to address this worst-case situation rather than consisting
of the static multi-step test that presently appears in S7.4. Ricon
also requests that the wheelchair test device include a simulated
passenger (anthropomorphic dummy) which would have significant impact
on how quickly the threshold warning signal reacts.
Analysis of Petition (S6.1/S7.4 Threshold Warning Signal Requirement
and Related Test Procedure)
The petitioner suggests that the intent of the threshold warning
system would best be served by using a dynamic, rather than static,
test, in order to test the detection of unsafe movement. However, we
note that while the concept of the threshold warning system can be
attributed to both the California and SAE standards, the NHTSA chose
not to adopt either of these requirements verbatim. The threshold
warning signal requirements in FMVSS No. 403, S6.1 and its related test
procedure in S7.4 are intended to warn standing passengers who may be
aided by canes and walkers, as well as persons seated in wheelchairs,
scooters and other mobility aids that are within the threshold warning
area when the lift platform is greater than 25 mm (1 in) below the
vehicle floor and the associated testing procedures serve those ends.
The current requirements and test procedure dictate that the
warning signal must actuate if portions of a passenger and/or their
mobility aid is already within the threshold area when the lift
platform moves lower than 25 mm (1 in) below the vehicle floor and if
the lift platform is already 25 mm (1 in) below the vehicle floor when
a wheelchair rolls or a passenger steps onto any portion of the
threshold warning area. In order to comply with these requirements,
sensor coverage in the threshold warning area must be such that a
warning signal is actuated when one front wheel of the wheelchair test
device (WTD) is placed on any portion of the threshold warning area.
The warning must remain continuously actuated until the wheel is
removed from the threshold warning area or the platform is adjusted up
to within 25 mm (1 in) of the vehicle floor level. One front wheel of
the WTD is used because it exerts a downward force to trigger pressure
sensitive mats and the WTD has structure to trigger light beam type
systems. In addition, wheelchairs are the most common mobility aid used
on platform lifts.
The matrix of sensors in a pressure sensitive mat must be such that
it triggers off of the contact area between the WTD front wheel and the
mat, and the matrix of light beams in a light beam type system must be
such that the WTD structure continually obstructs at least one of the
light beams while the WTD's front wheel is moved to all portions of the
threshold warning area. Such systems will not allow a standing
passenger or a passenger in a mobility aid to be partially or
completely within the threshold area or roll/move within the threshold
area when the platform is greater than 25 mm (1 in) below the vehicle
floor without actuation of the threshold warning. Ricon's suggestion of
a dynamic test has the practical effect of reducing the proximity
sensing range to a single line under the assumption that the passenger
will cross the line slowly after the platform has already been lowered.
It may not warn a passenger already on the threshold when the platform
is lowered subsequently.
The threshold warning requirements in FMVSS No. 403, as well as
prior threshold warning standards do not protect fast-moving passengers
moving through the threshold area. In order to do so, requirements
would have to specify a maximum threshold warning reaction time, would
most likely require a deeper threshold warning area and the degree of
protection would still significantly depend on the reaction time of the
passenger. However, comments to the supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking, the response to which was published in the final rule (67
FR 79416) included requests from Ricon, as well as others, to reduce
the depth of the threshold warning area beyond its current 457 mm (18
in) depth due to limited space in the vehicle. FMVSS No. 403 currently
maintains the 457 mm (18 in) depth requirement for the threshold
warning area. However, with limited space in the vehicle for the
existing threshold warning area, there is also limited space for a
walking or wheelchair-bound passenger to build enough speed to move
extremely fast through the threshold area. The current threshold
warning area is of adequate size to warn passengers moving slowly
through the threshold area and passengers stationary on any portion of
the threshold area. The NHTSA believes that the current threshold
warning signal requirements and test procedures in FMVSS No. 403 are
appropriate and objective ways of ensuring compliance and protection to
passengers in these situations. If there is no room in the vehicle to
expand the threshold area, then improving protection for fast-moving
passengers (if such situations exist) is not practical and the need to
add or substitute a dynamic test is moot. Therefore, Ricon's petition
to adopt a
[[Page 50320]]
dynamic test for the threshold warning signal is denied.
Regarding Ricon's request that the WTD include a simulated
passenger (anthropomorphic dummy) which would have significant impact
on how quickly the threshold warning signal reacts, the NHTSA does not
agree that placing a load in the WTD will have a significant impact on
the timeliness of threshold warning actuation relative to weight-based
or light beam type systems. However, the NHTSA is already considering
allowing a human representative of a 5th percentile female to be
present in the WTD during the threshold warning signal test in FMVSS
No. 403, S7.4. This consideration has no relationship to threshold
warning signal response times but is related to a petition from Lift-U
(Docket: NHTSA-2005-20286-30) concerning the use of infrared threshold
warning detection. Information relative to this petition will be
published in the near future in the form of a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM).
Summary of Petition (S6.10.2.3 Anti-Stow Interlock Requirement)
In its petition, Ricon recognizes that the purpose of the Anti-Stow
Interlock is to prevent the accidental stowage of an occupied lift and
that the anti-stow interlock requirement in FMVSS No. 403 was carried
over from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility
Specifications for Transportation Vehicles (hereafter ``ADA'').\1\
Ricon also agrees that the 50-pound weight used in FMVSS No. 403 is
intended to simulate an unattended standing passenger. However, Ricon
states that it disagrees with the FMVSS No. 403 version of the
interlock requirement which states that the interlock must prevent
stowing of the lift platform when the 50-pound weight is placed on
``any portion'' of the platform. Ricon believes that the interlock
should only be tested with the 50-pound weight at the center of the
lift platform instead of on ``any portion'' of the lift platform. Ricon
cites the following reasons for its position:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 49 CFR Part 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under 49 CFR Part 38.23 Section (12), Use by Standees, it
states that lifts shall accommodate persons using walkers, crutches,
canes or braces or who otherwise have difficulty using steps. The
platform may be marked to indicate a preferred standing position.
Ricon lifts have the standing position clearly marked on
the lift platform. The standing position is also described in the
operating instructions.
Canadian Motor Vehicle standards place the test weight at
the ``centroid'' position of the lift platform in its anti-stow
interlock requirement.
The required placement of the handrails required by FMVSS
No. 403 dictate that the passenger stand in the approximate center of
the platform.
NHTSA's ``Final Regulatory Evaluation (FRE) and Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis--Platform Lift'' does not include the anti-stow
interlock in its discussion of hardware improvements necessary for
existing lift designs to comply with FMVSS No. 403. Therefore, designs
previous to the FRE must be acceptable. Such designs only trigger the
interlock and prevent stowing of an occupied lift when the 50-pound
weight is placed in the center of the platform.
Ricon claims that with respect to active lifts, it has met the anti-
stow interlock requirement by incorporating a pressure control switch
in the hydraulic circuit. The switch is designed to detect weight on
the platform by reading pressure settings. In this case, pressure is a
function of weight and the location of the weight on the platform. The
further the weight is placed from the pivot center the higher the
pressure reading. The Ricon system was designed to detect the 50-pound
weight placed at the centroid (standee) position. Ricon said that based
on its industry experience and observation of competitor's products,
this same design feature is used on the vast majority of ``active''
platform lifts in service prior to FMVSS No. 403, and remains in
service today. Further, Ricon believes that this is the design feature
that the NHTSA reviewed prior to concluding that there was no
additional cost of compliance to meet this requirement. However, by the
NHTSA requiring the interlock to function when the test weight is on
``any position'' rather than simply on the ``centroid or standee''
position, significant design changes, as well as additional costs,
which were not anticipated are required. Ricon believes that the choice
of language to include ``any position'' on the platform is inconsistent
with prior industry practice as well as NHTSA's own intent which
resulted in unintended consequences not foreseen by the regulation. As
such, Ricon is requesting that the language in S6.10.2.3 be changed to
specify placement of the 50-pound weight at the ``centroid or standee''
position.
Analysis of Petition (S6.10.2.3 Anti-Stow Interlock Requirement)
Under ADA, Subpart A, 38.23 Mobility aid accessibility, (b) Vehicle
lift, (12) Use by standees it states that ``lifts shall accommodate
persons using walkers, crutches, canes or braces or who otherwise have
difficulty using steps. The platform may be marked to indicate a
preferred standing position.'' The ADA also states under Subpart A,
38.23 Mobility aid accessibility, (b) Vehicle lift, (2) Controls that
the control shall not allow an occupied platform to fold or retract
into the stowed position. The ADA does not specifically link ``a
preferred standing position'' in the ``Use by standees'' section to the
anti-stow interlock requirement under the ``Controls'' section. Also,
the ADA contains no test procedure. It was for this reason that the
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board charged the
NHTSA with the responsibility of developing safety tests for platform
lifts. The NHTSA follows ADA's premise that the anti-stow interlock
should protect standing passengers, as well as persons in mobility
aids. Not all lift manufacturers designate a standing position on its
platform and standing passengers have the option of standing on any
useable portion of the platform even if a standing position is
designated. It is for these reasons that the NHTSA chose to test the
anti-stow interlock on any useable portion of the platform. The anti-
stow interlock requirements in FMVSS No. 403, S6.10.2.3 not only
protects heavy loads such as a passenger in a wheelchair completely on
the lift platform, but it also protects lighter loads such as a small
child standing on any useable portion of the platform, as well as
passengers in wheelchairs that may be partially on the lift platform
and partially on the vehicle floor.
Ricon commented in its petition that the FRE did not include the
anti-stow interlock in its discussion of hardware improvements
necessary for existing lift designs to comply with FMVSS No. 403, and
therefore NHTSA did not really intend the anti-stow interlock to
protect passengers on any useable portion of the platform. The FRE
talks in general terms and does not necessarily address the specifics
of each and every individual lift model. It is NHTSA's intention that
the anti-stow interlock protect all passengers whether standing or
seated in mobility aids on any useable portion of the platform. This
concept is feasible as proven by manufacturers that have interpreted
and complied with the requirements correctly. Therefore, NHTSA is not
persuaded to amend the interlock requirement in accordance with Ricon's
petition.
[[Page 50321]]
Summary of Petition (S6.10.2.7/S7.6 Occupied Inner Roll Stop Interlock
Requirement and Related Test Procedure)
Ricon, in its petition, recognizes that the occupied inner roll
stop interlock in FMVSS No. 403 is intended to detect the presence of a
passenger (either in a wheelchair or a standee) on the inner roll stop
and prevent the inner roll stop from deploying when it is occupied.
Ricon further mentions that the test procedure in S7.6 uses the front
wheel of the WTD to simulate an occupied inner roll stop. Ricon
indicates that there is significant latitude about the number of front
wheels to be placed on the inner roll stop (either one or two front
wheels), as well as where the front wheels are placed. Ricon believes
that the degree of latitude is ambiguous and may cause test results
that are not objective and repeatable. Ricon recommends changing S7.6
by substituting a 25-pound test weight for the WTD. Ricon said that a
25-pound test weight will exert the same force as the weight of one
front wheel of an unoccupied WTD and at the same time would provide
worst-case protection for standing passengers. Ricon further explained
that for test purposes, it recommends placement of the entire 25-pound
weight on any portion of the inner barrier. By this Ricon means that
the weight should not be placed half on and half off the inner barrier.
Ricon says that such an amendment to FMVSS No. 403 would allow for easy
verification of the interlock outside of a laboratory environment which
is important as it will eliminate the myriad of ad hoc tests that
inspectors currently use when a wheelchair test device is not readily
available. Ricon indicated that the proposed change will make the test
procedure more objective and repeatable.
Analysis of Petition (S6.10.2.7/S7.6 Occupied Inner Roll Stop Interlock
Requirement and Related Test Procedure)
The test procedure in FMVSS No. 403, S7.6 is a single test
procedure that verifies both the interlock requirements in S6.10.2.4
and S6.10.2.7. The interlock in S6.10.2.4 is one that prevents further
up or down movement of the platform if the inner roll stop fails to
deploy at the point where it is designed to deploy. The interlock in
S6.10.2.7 is one that prevents the inner roll stop from deploying when
occupied. Therefore, if the platform is moving down from the vehicle
floor level and a wheel of the WTD is on the inner roll stop, when the
platform gets to the level where the inner roll stop is designed to
deploy, the inner roll stop should not deploy and the platform should
stop. This means that the S6.10.2.7 interlock sensed that the inner
roll stop was occupied and did not deploy and the S6.10.2.4 interlock
sensed that the inner roll stop did not deploy at the point it is
designed to deploy and caused the platform to stop. Also, when the
S6.10.2.7 interlock is activated and inhibiting deployment of the inner
roll stop, it must not allow the inner roll stop to lift the wheel of
the WTD vertically off the platform more than 13 mm (0.5 in).
The test procedure instructs one to move the lift platform to the
vehicle floor level and place the WTD on the lift platform facing
toward the vehicle. The platform is moved down until the inner roll
stop deploys and this location is noted. The platform is then moved
back up to the vehicle floor level loading position. One front wheel of
the WTD is placed on any portion of the inner roll stop. If the
platform is too narrow to maneuver one front wheel of the WTD on any
portion of the inner roll stop, two front wheels may be placed on any
portion of the inner roll stop. Using the lift control move the
platform down until it stops. The platform must not be at a lower level
than the previously noted level where the inner roll stop is designed
to deploy and the wheel or wheels of the WTD must not have raised
vertically more than 13 mm (0.5 in).
The NHTSA has not received any specific complaints relative to
implementation or repeatability problems with the test procedure. The
NHTSA chose the front wheel of the WTD to load the inner roll stop as
it is probably the most common item that may be inadvertently on and
restricting the deployment of the inner roll stop under real-world
conditions. The NHTSA does not stipulate how the wheelchair test
device's wheel is placed on the inner roll stop. It is permissible for
the wheel to be completely on the inner roll stop so the full downward
force exerted by the wheel is transferred to the inner roll stop. If
S7.6 were amended to use a 25-pound test weight, then other tests that
use the front wheel of the WTD would have to be amended for the sake of
consistency. Therefore, the NHTSA is not in favor of changing the load
to a test weight unless specific problems with detailed information and
data are brought to our attention. As the NHTSA's regulations require
self-certification, it is not prohibited that manufacturers and
inspectors test with a 25-pound test weight as long as they determine
that it will correctly indicate compliance of their particular lift
design when the weight is placed on any portion of the inner roll stop.
The NHTSA, however, will continue to conduct compliance tests using the
front wheel of the WTD in accordance with S7.6. Therefore, the NHTSA,
at this time, denies Ricon's petition to amend S7.6 to use a 25-pound
test weight in place of the front wheel of the WTD.
Conclusion
In accordance with 49 CFR Part 552, this completes the agency's
review of the petition for rulemaking. The NHTSA believes that the
suggested amendments would not result in a substantial increase in the
effectiveness and safety benefit of the requirements and related test
procedures. The NHTSA also believes that the current requirements and
test procedures are appropriate and objective ways of ensuring
compliance. Thus, after considering the allocation of agency resources
and agency priorities, NHTSA has decided that the rulemaking requested
by the petitioner is not warranted. Accordingly rulemaking on the
petition is denied.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: August 27, 2007.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E7-17374 Filed 8-30-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P