Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 58843

1Pub. 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.

PART 173—[CORRECTED]

■ 2. On page 55116, in § 173.403, in the 

definition for ‘‘Low Specific Activity 

(LSA) material,’’ correct the introductory 

paragraph, and paragraphs (1)(iii), (3)(i) 

and (3)(ii) to read as follows:

§ 173.403 Definitions.

* * * * *

Low Specific Activity (LSA) material

means Class 7 (radioactive) material 

with limited specific activity which 

satisfies the descriptions and limits set 

forth below. Shielding material 

surrounding the LSA material may not 

be considered in determining the 

estimated average specific activity of the 

package contents. LSA material must be 

in one of three groups: 

(1) * * * 

(iii) Radioactive material other than 

fissile material, for which the A2 value 

is unlimited; or

* * * * *

(3) * * * 

(i) The radioactive material is 

distributed throughout a solid or a 

collection of solid objects, or is 

essentially uniformly distributed in a 

solid compact binding agent (such as 

concrete, bitumen, ceramic, etc.); 

(ii) The radioactive material is 

relatively insoluble, or it is intrinsically 

contained in a relatively insoluble 

material, so that, even under loss of 

packaging, the loss of Class 7 

(radioactive) material per package by 

leaching when placed in water for seven 

days would not exceed 0.1 A2; and

* * * * *

■ 3. On page 55117, in the first column, 

in § 173.411, correct paragraph (b)(2)(ii) 

to read as follows:

§ 173.411 Industrial packagings.

* * * * *

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) A significant increase in the 

radiation levels recorded or calculated 

at the external surfaces for the condition 

before the test.

* * * * *

■ 4. On page 55118, in the third column, 

in §173.427, correct paragraph (b)(4) to 

read as follows:

§ 173.427 Transport requirements for low 

specific activity (LSA) Class 7 (radioactive) 

materials and surface contaminated objects 

(SCO).

* * * * *

(b) * * * 

(4) In a packaging which meets the 

requirements of §§ 173.24, 173.24a, and 

173.410, but only for domestic 

transportation of an exclusive use 

shipment that is less than an A2

quantity.

* * * * *

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 

24, 2004 under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

Part 1. 

Samuel G. Bonasso, 

Deputy Administrator, Research and Special 

Programs Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–22145 Filed 9–30–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2004–19209] 

RIN 2127–AJ18 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Platform Lifts for Motor 

Vehicles, Platform Lift Installations in 

Motor Vehicles

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions 

for reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: This document responds to 

petitions for reconsideration of the 

December 2002 final rule that 

established two new Federal motor 

vehicle safety standards, one for 

platform lifts and one for vehicles 

equipped with such lifts. The purpose 

of these standards is to prevent injuries 

and fatalities during lift operation. The 

agency received several petitions for 

reconsideration of the December 2002 

final rule from platform lift 

manufacturers, vehicle manufacturers, 

and a transportation safety research 

organization. In response to these 

petitions, the agency is clarifying the 

applicability of the standards. This 

document also amends the definitions 

of certain operational functions, the 

requirements for lift lighting on public 

lifts, the interlock requirements, 

compliance procedures for lifts that 

manually deploy/stow, the 

environmental resistance requirements, 

the edge guard requirements, the 

wheelchair test device specifications, 

and the location requirements for public 

lift controls.

DATES: Effective Dates: The amendments 

in this rule are effective December 27, 

2004. 

Petitions: Petitions for reconsideration 

must be received by November 15, 2004, 

and should refer to this docket and the 

notice number of this document and be 

submitted to: Administrator, National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 

20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues, you may contact 

William Evans, Office of Crash 

Avoidance Standards, at (202) 366–

2272. 

For legal issues, you may contact 

Christopher Calamita, Office of Chief 

Counsel, at (202) 366–2992, and fax 

them at (202) 366–3820. 

You may send mail to these officials 

at the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., 

Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background 

II. Petitions for Reconsideration 

A. Special Purpose Lifts 

B. Definitions of ‘‘Deploy’’ and ‘‘Stow’’

C. Platform Lift Lighting on Public Use 

Lifts 

D. Interlock Sensors 

E. Lifts That Manually Stow and Deploy 

F. Environmental Resistance 

G. Platform Deflection 

H. Edge Guards 

I. Test Device 

J. Control Systems 

K. Minimum Load Requirements for 

Private Use Lifts 

L. Threshold Warning Signal 

M. Wheelchair Restraint Standards 

N. Cost of Testing 

III. Corrections 

IV. Effective Date 

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Background 

On December 27, 2002, the agency 

published in the Federal Register (67 

FR 79416) a final rule establishing 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) No. 403, Platform lift systems 

for motor vehicles, and FMVSS No. 404, 

Platform lift installation on motor 

vehicles (final rule), effective December 

27, 2004. These two new standards 

provide practicable, performance based 

requirements and compliance 

procedures for the regulations 

promulgated by the DOT under the 

American with Disabilities Act 1 (ADA). 

FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 provide that 

only lift systems that comply with 

objective safety requirements may be 

placed in service.

FMVSS No. 403 establishes 

requirements for platform lifts that are 

58844 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

designed to carry passengers who rely 

on wheelchairs, scooters, canes, and 

other mobility aid devices in entering 

and exiting motor vehicles. The 

standard requires that these lifts meet 

minimum platform dimensions and 

maximum size limits for platform 

protrusions and gaps between the 

platform and either the vehicle floor or 

the ground. The standard also requires 

handrails, a threshold warning signal, 

and retaining barriers. Performance tests 

are specified for wheelchair retention on 

the platform, lift strength, and platform 

slip resistance requirements. A set of 

interlocks is prescribed to prevent 

accidental movement of a lift and the 

vehicle on which a lift is installed. 

FMVSS No. 404 establishes 

requirements for vehicles equipped with 

platform lifts. The lifts must be certified 

as meeting FMVSS No. 403. The vehicle 

standard requires that the lifts be 

installed according to the lift 

manufacturer’s instructions and must 

continue to meet all of the applicable 

requirements of FMVSS No. 403. The 

standard also required that specific 

information is made available to lift 

users. 

Recognizing the different usage 

patterns of platform lifts on public 

transit versus that of platform lifts for 

individual use, the agency established 

separate requirements for public use 

lifts and private use lifts. S4.1.1 of 

FMVSS No. 404 requires that liftequipped buses, school buses and 

multipurpose passenger vehicles other 

than motor homes with a gross vehicle 

weight rating greater than 4,536 kg 

(10,000 lb) must be equipped with a lift 

certified to all applicable public use lift 

requirements set forth in FMVSS No. 

403. Since lifts on these vehicles will 

generally be subject to more stress and 

cyclic loads and will be used by more 

and varied populations, more 

requirements as to platform size, 

control, and handrails are appropriate. 

As required by the ADA, FMVSS Nos. 

403 and 404 are consistent with the 

Architectural and Transportation 

Barriers Compliance Board (ATBCB) 

guidelines published on September 6, 

1991 (56 FR 45530). In order to provide 

manufacturers sufficient time to meet 

any new requirements established in 

FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404, the agency 

provided a two-year lead time. These 

standards will become effective 

December 27, 2004.

II. Petitions for Reconsideration 

In response to the final rule, the 

agency received six petitions for 

reconsideration from platform lift 

manufacturers, vehicle manufacturers, 

and a transportation safety research 

organization. Specifically, petitions 

were received from: Lift-U, a platform 

lift manufacturer; Stewart & Stevenson, 

a platform lift manufacturer; Braun 

Industries Incorporated (Braun), an 

ambulance and ‘‘mobile intensive care 

and a neo-natal land vehicles’’

manufacturer; Braun Corporation (Braun 

Corp), a lift and vehicle manufacturer; 

Mac’s Lift Gate, Inc. (Mac’s Lift Gate), a 

manufacturer of special purpose lifts; 

Prevost Car, Inc. (Prevost), an over-theroad bus manufacturer; and the 

University of Pittsburgh Engineering 

Research Center on Wheelchair 

Transportation Safety (University of 

Pittsburgh), a transportation safety 

research organization. 

The petitioners requested the agency 

establish an exclusion for special 

purpose lifts, and amend the definitions 

of ‘‘deploy’’ and ‘‘stow,’’ the platform 

lift lighting requirements, the interlock 

requirements, the fatigue endurance 

requirement, the environmental 

resistance requirements, the platform 

deflection requirements, the edge guard 

requirements, control system 

requirements, the minimum load 

standard for private lifts, and the 

threshold warning requirements. 

In response to these petitions, the 

agency is amending FMVSS Nos. 403 

and 404 to clarify the applicability of 

these standards so that they do not 

apply to special purpose lifts and lifts 

installed on ambulances, redefine 

‘‘deploy’’ and ‘‘stow’’ to be less design 

restrictive, establish the lighting 

requirements as a vehicle requirement; 

permit lift manufacturers to rely on 

existing vehicle components to comply 

with the interlock requirements, 

exclude lifts that manually deploy and 

stow from specified lift performance 

requirements, permit a wider range of 

platform lift designs to comply with 

environmental resistance requirements 

for internally stowed lifts, provide more 

flexibility in the degree of platform 

deflection between the unloaded 

platform and the vehicle floor, reduce 

the required extension of continuous 

edge guards to inner platform edge, 

establish a performance based 

alternative to the continuous edge guard 

requirement, establish further 

specifications for the wheelchair test 

device, clarify the term ‘‘control 

system,’’ provide flexibility in the 

placement of the control system panel, 

and make several corrections to the 

regulatory text adopted by the final rule. 

The issues raised by the petitioners are 

addressed below. 

A. Special Purpose Lifts 

Braun and Mac’s Lift Gate petitioned 

the agency to exclude special purpose 

lifts and vehicles equipped with special 

purpose lifts from the requirements of 

FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404, respectively. 

The petitioners argued that special 

purpose lifts and vehicles equipped 

with these lifts are used for medical 

transport only, such as the transport of 

individuals on cots, transport 

incubators, and isolet carriers. Braun 

and Mac’s Lift Gate further argued that 

the size and configuration of special 

purpose lift systems are designed 

specifically to transport patients in cots 

or isolet carriers and prevent use by 

individuals using mobility aids such as 

wheel chairs, scooters, or canes. The 

petitioners stated that special purpose 

lifts are not intended to accommodate 

individuals in wheelchairs, mobility 

devices or individuals standing. In fact, 

the petitioners stated, the narrow width 

of most special purpose lifts makes it 

impossible to use for wheelchairs and 

mobility aids such as scooters. 

Therefore, the petitioners argued, 

because FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 are 

intended to apply to lifts that 

accommodate individuals using canes, 

walkers, wheelchairs and mobility 

devices, it would be inappropriate to 

apply these regulations to lifts and 

vehicles equipped with lifts specifically 

designed to accommodate individuals 

for specialized medical transport. 

Agency response: The agency is 

clarifying the applicability sections of 

FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 to make it 

clear that these standards do not apply 

to lifts installed on medical transport 

vehicles for the purpose of loading and 

unloading cots and/or incubators, or to 

those vehicles themselves. NHTSA 

explained in the preamble to the final 

rule that its intent is to protect lift users 

aided by canes or walkers, as well as lift 

users seated in wheelchairs, scooters 

and other mobility devices in the course 

of ordinary transit. 

FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 are not 

intended to apply to systems involving 

specialized medical transport. Lifts used 

in specialized medical transport do not 

present the safety concerns addressed 

by these standards. The lifts described 

by the petitioners do not accommodate 

persons in wheelchairs, scooters, or 

other types of mobility devices as the 

platforms are generally far too narrow. 

Further, these specialized lifts transport 

individuals lying in cots and isolet 

carriers, and who generally have no 

control of their own mobility during 

transport. 

Specialized medical lifts are not used 

in the ordinary transport of people with 

disabilities. Accordingly, this document 

amends the applicability sections of 

FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 to clarify that 

special purpose lifts and the vehicles on 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 58845

2The final rule established stricter requirements 

for lifts designed to be installed on all buses and 

on multi-purpose passenger vehicles with a gross 

vehicle rate rating in excess of 4,536 kg to reflect 

differences in use patterns. These lifts are defined 

as public use lifts. We again note that the 

requirements of the ADA still apply to all lifts 

installed on vehicles used as public conveyances.

3Section 1192.31 of the ADA adopts the lighting 

standards sets forth in the ATBCB’s Accessibility 

Guidelines for Transportation Vehicles.

which they are installed are not 

regulated by these standards.

B. Definitions of ‘‘Deploy’’ and ‘‘Stow’’

Lift-U petitioned the agency for 

reconsideration of the definitions of 

‘‘deploy’’ and ‘‘stow.’’ In its petition, 

Lift-U stated that the definition of 

‘‘deploy’’ in the final rule specifies that 

a platform must deploy directly to one 

of the two loading positions. The 

petitioner explained that some lift 

models ‘‘deploy’’ from a stowed 

position to an extended position within 

the range of passenger operation instead 

of directly to one of the two loading 

positions. Lift-U stated that under this 

design, the raise or lower controls must 

be actuated to move the platform after 

it had been ‘‘deployed’’ to allow loading 

from either the vehicle or ground level 

loading position. Lift-U argued that the 

current definition of ‘‘deploy’’ would 

have the effect of prohibiting this 

design. 

Lift-U also requested that the agency 

amend the definition of ‘‘stow.’’ The 

petitioner explained that ‘‘stow’’ with 

respect to a lift typically means that the 

devices are put away or placed in a 

position maintained during normal 

vehicle travel. However, the ‘‘stowed’’

position of a wheelchair retention 

device, a bridging device, or an inner 

roll stop used to allow a passenger to 

embark or disembark the platform may 

be an intermediate or extended position 

beyond the deployed position. Lift-U 

requested that the definition be 

amended to reflect this design variation 

properly. 

Agency response: The agency grants 

Lift-U’s petition with respect to the 

definitions of ‘‘deploy’’ and ‘‘stow.’’

While the definitions of ‘‘deploy’’ and 

‘‘stow’’ in the final rule reflect a vast 

majority of platform lift designs, the 

agency recognizes there are a variety of 

active and passive lift designs in 

existence. For example, active 

wheelchair lifts require an additional 

entrance for wheelchair passengers, 

while passive wheelchair lifts use 

existing vehicle entrances. When 

stowed, a passive lift provides steps for 

passengers. When operational a passive 

lift forms a platform that lifts a 

wheelchair from the ground to the level 

of the vehicle floor. In recognition of 

existing design variations, the agency is 

amending these definitions to be less 

design restrictive. 

In a typical lift design, the platform 

lift is mounted upright in the vehicle 

compartment. This type of lift will 

usually deploy directly to the vehicle 

loading position because the lift is close 

to this position when it deploys or 

unfolds. Some external lifts may deploy 

directly to the ground level loading 

position as they are close to that 

position when they deploy or unfold. 

However, passive lifts may deploy to an 

extended position so that they may be 

raised or lowered to one of the two 

loading positions. We see no safety 

problem with the any of these 

deployment methods so long as the 

maximum deployment speed is 

sufficiently slow to permit bystanders to 

move out of the path of a deploying 

platform lift, as required under S6.2.2.2. 

Accordingly, we are amending the 

definition of ‘‘deploy’’ in S4 of FMVSS 

No. 403 to reflect lift designs that move 

to an intermediate position when 

deployed. 

To maintain consistency throughout 

FMVSS No. 403, the agency is also 

amending the control system 

requirements in S6.7.2.2 to reflect that 

a platform lift may deploy to an 

intermediate position as opposed to 

deploying directly to one of the two 

loading positions. 

The agency also agrees with Lift-U 

that the position of a wheelchair 

retention device, bridging device, or 

inner roll stop during normal vehicle 

travel may not be the same as the 

position during passenger access to and 

from the platform. To reflect this design 

variety, we are amending the definition 

of ‘‘stow’’ in S4 of FMVSS No. 403, with 

respect to wheelchair retention devices, 

bridging devices, and inner-roll stops, to 

refer to the positioning during normal 

vehicle travel.

C. Platform Lift Lighting on Public Use 

Lifts 

Under the final rule, public use 

platform lift manufacturers must 

provide lighting hardware along with 

detailed installation instructions that 

address the mounting, powering, 

location and positioning of lighting, as 

well as operational test procedures. The 

lighting equipment and installation 

instructions must permit a vehicle 

manufacturer to verify that, when 

installed according to the instructions, 

the lighting will be operational and 

meet the lighting requirements of 

FMVSS No. 403. When a lift 

manufacturer certifies the lift as 

complying with FMVSS No. 403, it is 

certifying that when the lighting 

equipment is installed as instructed on 

a vehicle for which the lift is intended 

(a list of suitable vehicles appears in the 

installation instructions), the lift will 

meet the applicable lighting 

requirements. 

In petitions for reconsideration, both 

Prevost and the Braun Corp raised 

concerns regarding the lighting 

requirements for public use lifts.2

Prevost specifically wanted to know if it 

is the responsibility of the lift 

manufacturer to incorporate lighting for 

the lift under FMVSS No. 403 or if it is 

the responsibility of the vehicle 

manufacturer to provide lighting under 

FMVSS No. 404.

The Braun Corp stated that identical 

lift products may be installed on a wide 

variety of vehicles. The Braun Corp 

claimed that although lift manufacturers 

can easily provide the method of 

interfacing platform lighting with the 

lift, they will have difficulty in 

determining the amount of lighting that 

will be required for each lift/vehicle 

application. Thus, the Braun Corp 

argued that the level of lighting 

intensity is application specific and 

should be determined at the time of lift 

installation. It further argued that public 

use vehicle manufacturers have already 

accepted responsibility for complying 

with the lighting requirements of 36 

CFR 1192.31.3 Therefore, the Braun 

Corp argued, compliance with the 

lighting standard should be the 

responsibility of the vehicle 

manufacturer.

Agency response: The agency 

structured the lighting requirements so 

that a platform lift system would be a 

complete, self-contained system ready 

for installation upon delivery to the 

vehicle manufacturer. While FMVSS 

No. 403 requires a lift manufacturer to 

provide the hardware and instructions 

necessary to install lighting in a manner 

that complies with the requirements of 

the standard, the agency explained that 

FMVSS No. 404 places the burden of 

complying with the lighting 

requirements on the vehicle 

manufacturer through compliance with 

the installation instructions (67 FR 

79416, 79427). 

The agency realizes that the vehicle 

manufacturers have traditionally 

provided lift lighting. Additionally, 

public use vehicle manufacturers 

already must comply with ADA lighting 

standards, which require lighting on 

doorways, step wells, lifts and ramps. In 

some cases, ADA required lighting in 

conjunction with other pre-existing 

vehicle lighting might already meet or 

exceed the lighting requirements of 

S6.4.11 in FMVSS No. 403. In these 

58846 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

4S5.2(a) of FMVSS No. 209 states that, ‘‘The test 

for corrosion resistance shall not be required for 

attachment hardware made from corrosion-resistant 

steel containing at least 11.5 percent chromium[.]’’

instances, lighting provided by a lift 

manufacturer would be redundant with 

efforts already required of vehicle 

manufacturers. For these reasons, we are 

requiring that vehicle manufacturers 

comply with the lighting requirements 

through vehicle lighting systems as 

opposed to the installation of lighting 

systems provided by a lift manufacturer. 

Accordingly, the lighting requirements 

are moved to FMVSS No. 404. 

Platform lift manufacturers will now 

be required to place a statement in the 

installation instructions stating that, 

‘‘Public use vehicle manufacturers are 

responsible for complying with the lift 

lighting requirements in Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard No. 404, 

Platform lift installations in motor 

vehicles (49 CFR 571.404).’’ The 

platform lift lighting requirement 

formerly in S6.4.11 of FMVSS No. 403 

is now a motor vehicle requirement in 

S4.1.5 of FMVSS No. 404. As they are 

already required to meet the applicable 

lighting requirements under the ADA, 

this will not be an additional burden for 

the vehicle manufacturers. 

D. Interlock Sensors 

In its petition for reconsideration, the 

Braun Corp also raised issues regarding 

the interlock requirements in FMVSS 

No. 403. The final rule established 

interlock requirements to prevent the 

forward or rearward motion of a vehicle 

while a platform lift is deployed. The 

agency determined that the compliance 

responsibility for the interlock 

requirements should rest with the 

platform lift manufacturer, and that the 

lift manufacturer must provide 

information identifying the appropriate 

vehicle make/model/year for 

installation of a particular lift design. 

Under the final rule, the lift 

manufacturer must certify that the 

installation hardware is fully 

compatible with those vehicles. 

In response to this requirement, the 

Braun Corp argued that it is 

unreasonable to require a lift 

manufacturer to design door, brake and 

transmission interlocks to fit and 

immobilize all makes and models of 

vehicles. The Braun Corp explained that 

under current practice, lift 

manufacturers provide generic circuitry 

to interface with vehicle systems, but 

the design of an interlock is more 

appropriately the responsibility of the 

vehicle manufacturer. 

Agency response: We recognize that it 

may be difficult for lift manufacturers to 

provide the vehicle parts necessary for 

interlocks to work with the lift circuitry. 

In many cases, the vehicle sensors and 

switches needed by these interlocks 

may already be part of existing vehicle 

systems. It may be possible for existing 

vehicle components to send and receive 

signals to and from the lift as part of the 

interlock system. We do not wish to 

discourage the use of interlock switches 

and sensors provided by vehicle 

manufacturers, which may provide 

better reliability than hardware supplied 

by the platform lift manufacturers. 

Accordingly, the interlock 

requirements of FMVSS No. 403 are 

amended to permit lift manufacturers to 

rely on vehicle system components. The 

requirements established by this rule 

still require lift manufacturers to have 

prior knowledge of how a lift will 

interface with each particular vehicle 

model for which the lift is intended. 

However, S6.10.2 of FMVSS No. 403 is 

amended by this rule to relieve lift 

manufacturers from the responsibility of 

providing the entire interlock system. A 

platform lift manufacturer may provide 

less than a full interlock system 

intended to work in conjunction with a 

vehicle’s existing components, as long 

as when the platform lift is installed 

according to the installation 

instructions, the interlock requirements 

of S6.10.2.1 through S6.10.2.7 are met.

E. Lifts that Manually Stow and Deploy 

The final rule established several 

performance requirements in FMVSS 

No. 403 that involve the stowing and 

deploying of lifts, including: S6.2.2, 

Maximum platform velocity; S6.5.1, 

Fatigue Endurance; and S6.10.2.3, 

which requires an interlock to prevent 

the platform from stowing when 

occupied. Stewart & Stevenson 

requested clarification as to the 

application of these requirements to 

platform lifts that are stowed and 

deployed manually. With specific 

regard to the fatigue endurance test 

procedure, Stewart & Stevenson 

indicated that fatigue cycling test 

procedures under California Title 13, 

Department of California Highway 

Patrol, Commercial and Technical 

Services Section do not apply the stow/

deploy functions if the platform lift is 

designed to stow and deploy manually. 

Regarding the interlock requirement, 

Stewart & Stevenson stated that 

platforms which are manually deployed 

and stowed cannot be stowed when the 

platform is occupied, and therefore an 

interlock is not necessary. 

Agency response: The agency did not 

consider platform lifts designed to be 

stowed and deployed manually. When 

such lifts are in the process of stowing 

and deploying, the person who is 

manually performing the task is in 

control of the platform and the lift 

velocity during deployment or stowing. 

While being manually stowed or 

deployed, the platform is supported by 

the operator. Further, a platform that is 

stowed manually cannot by its nature be 

stowed until vacant. Accordingly, the 

agency has decided to exclude platform 

lifts that manually deploy/stow from the 

requirements relating to the stow and 

deploy functions in S6.2.2, S6.5.1, 

S6.10.2.3, S6.7.2, S7.10.5, and S7.10.6 of 

FMVSS No. 403. 

F. Environmental Resistance 

S6.3 of FMVSS No. 403 requires 

platform lifts to comply with 

environmental resistance requirements 

that reflect conditions lifts may 

experience during actual use. Hardware 

on a lift that stows inside an occupant 

compartment and is protected by an 

electrodeposited coating of nickel, or 

copper and nickel in accordance with 

ASTM B456–95, does not need to meet 

the environmental testing requirement 

of S6.3. This hardware is not subject to 

the environmental conditions 

potentially experienced by hardware on 

a lift that is stowed external to the 

passenger compartment. 

Stewart & Stevenson objected to the 

use of the phrase ‘‘occupant 

compartment’’ when identifying the 

stow location of lifts excluded from the 

environmental test requirements. It 

claimed that some lifts stow within 

other ‘‘sealed compartments’’ such as 

baggage compartments and are equally 

protected from the elements as lifts that 

stow within the occupant compartment. 

Additionally, Lift-U argued that lifts 

and hardware made of stainless steel as 

described in S5.2 of FMVSS No. 209, 

Seat belt assemblies,4 should also be 

excluded from the environmental 

resistance test requirements.

Agency response: The agency agrees 

with both Stewart & Stevenson and LiftU. The purpose of the environmental 

resistance requirement is to test the 

endurance of lifts and lift components 

when exposed to the elements. Less 

stringent requirements should apply to 

a lift that is stowed either in the 

occupant compartment or some other 

equivalent compartment. In both 

instances, the lift is protected against 

the exposure experienced by a lift that 

is stowed externally. Accordingly, we 

are amending S6.3 of FMVSS No. 403 to 

include lifts that stow internal to a 

sealed compartment that provides 

protection from the environment in the 

category of ‘‘internal lifts.’’ For internal 

lifts, only the attachment hardware is 

tested. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 58847

Further, NHTSA has concluded that 

stainless steel (containing at minimum 

11.5 percent chromium by weight) 

should be added to the list of materials 

that exclude hardware for lifts mounted 

inside a sealed compartment from the 

environmental test requirements. The 

agency has recognized the corrosion 

resistant properties of stainless steel in 

FMVSS No. 209, which excludes 

hardware made of corrosion-resistant 

steel with a minimum of 11.5 percent 

chromium from the environmental test 

requirements. Given the corrosion 

resistance properties of stainless steel, if 

a lift manufacturer desires to incur the 

additional expense of making an 

external lift and all of its associated 

hardware and components completely 

out of stainless steel, we believe it is 

appropriate to exclude such a lift from 

the environmental resistance tests in 

S7.3 of the final rule. However, a 

manufacturer must select which option 

it will rely on for certification by the 

time it certifies a lift and may not 

thereafter select a different option. 

G. Platform Deflection 

Under the platform deflection 

requirements in S6.4.5 of FMVSS No. 

403, the angle of a platform relative to 

the vehicle floor cannot be more than 

1.8 degrees when no load is present. In 

addition, the loaded platform may not 

deflect so that the angle of the loaded 

platform is more than three degrees 

from the angle of the unloaded platform. 

This limit on deflection prevents the 

platform from becoming unstable when 

loaded. We note that in a supplemental 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

(SNPRM), the agency initially proposed 

an unloaded deflection angle of one 

degree with respect to the vehicle floor. 

(65 FR 46228; July 27, 2000). In 

response to the SNPRM, Lift-U 

commented that the one-degree 

maximum was too restrictive, and 

would prohibit lifts designed to conform 

to the crown of various road surfaces. 

Therefore, the agency adopted the 1.8 

degree maximum permissible deflection 

angle relative to the vehicle floor. 

In responding to the final rule, Lift-U 

agreed with the maximum deflection of 

three degrees between the loaded and 

unloaded conditions. However, Lift-U 

argued that the overall maximum 

deflection (consisting of the unloaded 

deflection with respect to the vehicle 

floor plus the deflection between the 

loaded and unloaded conditions) should 

be a maximum of 4.8 degrees with no 

further limit on the angle of deflection 

between the unloaded platform and the 

vehicle floor. Lift-U stated that an 

absolute angle requirement would allow 

for various combinations of unloaded 

and loaded deflection angles that when 

summed together would be less than or 

equal to the maximum 4.8 degrees. The 

petitioner further argued that this 

flexibility would allow the lift to 

conform to the crown of various road 

surfaces when at the ground level 

loading positions. Lift-U also noted that 

the 4.8 degree maximum is in line with 

the ADA requirements for general access 

to buildings and therefore, persons 

relying on various mobility aids are 

familiar with slopes of this degree. 

Agency response: The agency is 

granting Lift-U’s petition to amend the 

platform deflection angle requirements. 

We are amending the platform 

deflection requirements to eliminate the 

1.8 degree restriction for the angle of 

deflection between the unloaded 

platform and the vehicle floor. The 

overall deflection angle requirement of 

a maximum of 4.8 degrees will remain 

the same, assuring that a platform lift 

will not be at too great of a slope.

In cases in which there is no 

deflection upon loading, the unloaded 

deflection angle may be as high as 4.8 

degrees with respect to the vehicle floor. 

The loaded deflection angle is still 

required to be less than or equal to 3 

degrees with respect to the unloaded 

position. The 3-degree requirement will 

prevent a platform from suddenly tilting 

too much when a passenger moves onto 

the lift. 

In all cases, the sum of the unloaded 

and loaded angles must not exceed 4.8 

degrees. This permits flexibility of 

design and will eliminate the need to 

redesign of existing platform lifts. 

Additionally, the 4.8-degree maximum 

maintains consistency with the slope 

requirements for general building access 

under the ADA, a condition with which 

platform lift users will most likely be 

familiar. 

H. Edge Guards 

In response to a supplemental notice 

of proposed rulemaking, Lift-U had 

requested that the agency amend the 

requirement for continuous edge guards 

and allow them to be present and 

continuous along the sides of the 

platform to within three inches from the 

outer platform edge. The three-inch 

allowance at the outer edge was 

established to facilitate the loading and 

unloading of a lift passenger when space 

is limited. Reducing the length of the 

edge guard allows a lift occupant to turn 

his or her mobility device when the 

space directly in front of the platform is 

restricted. The December 2002 final rule 

addressed Lift-U’s request. 

In its petition for reconsideration, 

Lift-U stated that for passive lifts, edge 

guards that extend below the lowest 

step riser when the platform is stowed 

interfere with vehicle doors when 

closed. The petitioner further argued 

that edge guards within three inches of 

the inner edge of a platform may 

become a tripping hazard inside the bus, 

and recommended a three-inch 

allowance from the inner edge. It also 

stated that it may be unnecessary for 

edge guards to be continuous along the 

sides of a lift platform when there are 

obstacles such as handrails, retention 

devices and roll-stops that box the 

wheelchair in and keep it from going off 

the sides of the platform. It suggested 

having a performance test requirement 

for edge guards as an alternative to 

requiring continuous edge guards. 

Agency response: NHTSA recognizes 

the problems that continuous edge 

guards cause on some passive lifts, 

particularly with edge guards located 

within three inches of the inner edge 

(vehicle side) of the platform. The ADA 

and the FTA both require that edge 

guards must not interfere with 

maneuvering into or out of a vehicle 

aisle. At the same time, barriers should 

prevent any of the wheels of a 

wheelchair or mobility aid from rolling 

off of the platform during its operation. 

For passive lifts, edge guards that 

extend below the lowest step riser when 

the lift is stowed could potentially 

interfere with bus door operation, as 

well as present a tripping hazard to 

passengers. Edge guards that extend past 

a point three inches from the inner edge 

of the platform may also become a 

tripping hazard in the isle of a vehicle 

when the lift is stowed. The existence 

of such an obstacle on the inner edge of 

the platform when stowed would be in 

violation of ADA if it interferes with 

maneuvering into or out of the aisle. 

The three-inch allowance for the 

outside edge of the platform does not 

diminish safety, as the remaining edge 

guards and the outer barrier/wheelchair 

retention device box a wheelchair into 

the area of the platform and prevent the 

wheels of a mobility device from rolling 

off of the edge of the platform. For these 

same reasons, we see no safety reason 

for not allowing edge guards to stop 

within three inches of the inner edge of 

the platform. The edge guards that 

remain are adequate to prevent wheels 

of a mobility device from rolling off the 

edge of the platform. Accordingly, we 

are amending S6.4.6.1 of FMVSS No. 

403 to require edge guards that extend 

continuously along each side of the 

platform lift to within three inches of 

the edges of the platform at both the 

ground and vehicle floor level loading 

positions. 

In addition, the agency agrees that 

permitting compliance with a 

58848 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

5This level is consistent with ANSI/RESNA WC/

Volume 1–1998, Section 22: Set Up Procedures.

6FTA, ‘‘Guideline Specifications for Passive Lifts, 

Active Lifts, Wheelchair Ramps, and Securement 

Devices,’’ September 1992.

performance test requirement as an 

alternative to continuous guards would 

be less design restrictive. Therefore, the 

agency is establishing a performance 

test as an alternative means to comply 

with the edge guard requirements. 

The agency is amending S7.7, 

Wheelchair retention device impact test,

of FMVSS No. 403 to include an edge 

guard performance test as an alternative 

to the continuous edge guard 

requirement. The test consists of 

operating a wheelchair test device from 

side-to-side and corner-to-corner on the 

platform. At the end of each test, all 

wheels of the wheelchair test device 

must be in contact with the platform 

surface. During the test, the footrests are 

removed from the wheelchair test 

device to test for the worse case 

scenario. A lift with sufficient edge 

guards, handrails, wheelchair retention 

devices and roll-stops to box a mobility 

aid onto the platform to prevent its 

wheels from rolling off the edge of the 

platform will comply with the edge 

guard requirements. 

I. Test Device 

To improve the repeatability of the 

newly established edge guard test, as 

well as other tests that use the 

wheelchair test device, the agency is 

amending S7.1.2, Wheelchair test 

device, to further specify the operating 

conditions. The specifications are 

amended to include a minimum level of 

battery charge and level of tire inflation. 

The agency is specifying that the charge 

on a battery be a minimum of 75 percent 

of rated nominal capacity.5 Because 

repeatability can also depend on proper 

tire inflation, the pneumatic tires of the 

wheelchair test device are to be inflated 

to the wheelchair manufacturer’s 

recommended pressure or, if no 

recommendation exists, to the 

maximum pressure that appears on the 

sidewalls of the tires.

J. Control Systems 

Lift-U requested that the agency 

clarify the term ‘‘control system’’ as 

used in S6.7.1 through S6.7.5 in FMVSS 

No. 403, stating that as currently used, 

the term may be interpreted too broadly. 

Lift-U cited S6.7.5, which states, ‘‘Any 

single point failure in the control system 

may not prevent the operation of any of 

the interlocks as specified in S6.10.’’

Lift-U expressed concern that in this 

context the phrase ‘‘control system’’

may be interpreted as requiring lifts to 

have redundant or back-up control 

systems with functional checks on start 

up. 

Lift-U also requested that the lift 

control location requirements for public 

use lifts in S6.7.7 be amended. As 

adopted in the final rule, S6.7.7 requires 

that lift controls for public use lifts, 

other than those used for backup 

operation, be positioned together and in 

a location such that a person facing the 

controls has a direct, unobstructed view 

of the platform lift passenger and the 

passenger’s mobility aid, if applicable. 

Lift-U contends that many passive lifts 

are installed in the front doorway of 

buses. This installation allows 

ambulatory passengers to use steps 

when the lift is stowed and persons 

with disabilities to use the lift when it 

is deployed. Lift-U explained that the 

controls for these front door lifts are 

located on the vehicle dash. Therefore, 

Lift-U argued, the driver has an 

unobstructed view of the lift passenger 

and the passenger’s mobility aid but 

must momentarily look at the dash to 

see the controls. The petitioner further 

argued that the requirement as written 

would eliminate this configuration, 

which is currently a prevalent design 

and does not present a safety problem.

Agency response: While the control 

system requirements in the final rule 

were derived from ADA requirements 

and FTA guidelines, we agree that as 

currently used in the standard, the 

phrase ‘‘control system’’ may be 

interpreted in an overly broad manner. 

For purposes of clarity, the agency is 

replacing the phrase ‘‘control system’’

with ‘‘control panel switches’’ in S6.7 of 

FMVSS No. 403. 

Under the discussion of ‘‘control 

systems’’ in the final rule, the agency 

explained that ‘‘each system would 

need to have a ‘power’ switch, a 

‘deploy’ or ‘unfold’ switch, an ‘up’

switch and a ‘‘down’’ switch[.]’’ This 

was intended to clarify that ‘‘control 

system’’ refers to the switches on the 

operator control panel. Replacing the 

phrase ‘‘control system’’ with the phrase 

‘‘control panel switches’’ more 

accurately reflects intent of the final 

rule. 

NHTSA also recognizes the restriction 

resulting from the positioning 

requirements for control panel switches. 

FTA guidelines indicate that the control 

console should be located in a position 

where the lift operator (driver) has a 

direct unobstructed view of the platform 

during lift operation.6 This does not 

require the operator to have an 

unobstructed view of the platform while 

facing the controls. NHTSA believes 

that there is no significant reduction in 

the level of safety by simply requiring 

that the lift operator have an 

unobstructed view of the lift passenger 

and passenger’s mobility aid. 

Accordingly, we are amending S6.7.7 to 

be consistent with FTA guidelines.

K. Minimum Load Requirements for 

Private Use Lifts 

S4 of FMVSS No. 403 requires private 

use lifts to comply with a minimum 

standard load rating of 400 lb (181 kg) 

and public use lifts to comply with a 

minimum standard load rating of 600 lb 

(272 kg). The difference in standard load 

rating reflects the difference in use 

patterns between a private use lift and 

a public use lift. 

The University of Pittsburgh 

petitioned to have both public and 

private use lifts comply with the 600 lb 

(272 kg) standard load rating. It 

indicated that the average weight of 26 

commonly used wheelchairs is 199 

pounds and the weight is often 

increased as a result of add-on devices 

such as a tilt-in-space seat. The 

University of Pittsburgh argued that 

when combined with the weight of a 

250-pound occupant (the maximum 

occupant weight capacity of most power 

wheelchairs), a 400-pound minimum 

load rating is likely to be inadequate. 

The petitioner further argued that the 

lower load capacity requirement for 

private use lifts will place an 

unnecessary burden on users by 

requiring them to have knowledge of 

their combined wheelchair-user weight 

in order to determine appropriate lift 

capacity. It argued that the 400-pound 

minimum does not take into account 

later changes in a user’s mobility device 

or subsequent users that may result in 

the lift capacity becoming exceeded. 

The University of Pittsburgh added that 

the required ‘‘DOT-Private Use Lift’’

labeling does not convey the load 

capacity associated with the lift, making 

it unnecessarily difficult to ascertain 

appropriate load capacity. 

Agency response: The agency is 

denying the University of Pittsburgh’s 

request to increase the load capacity of 

private-use lifts. We note that the 

SNPRM for the final rule proposed a 

600-pound standard load for testing all 

lifts, both private and public. This 

single standard was based on 

harmonization with voluntary standards 

and guidelines, as well as the fact that 

it was possible for the weight of many 

power wheelchair/occupant 

combinations to approach 491 lbs. 

(weight of a 99th percentile male and a 

250 lb. powered wheelchair). 

In response to the SNPRM, several 

commenters requested that the standard 

be amended to permit a lower load 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 58849

7Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J2093, 

issued May 1995.

capacity for private use lifts, as private 

use lifts are not required to conform 

with ADA requirements or harmonize 

with the ADA Accessibility Guidelines 

for Buildings and Facilities. 

Commenters indicated that there are 

lifts in existence designed for smaller 

vehicles (some minivans) and lighter 

wheelchair/occupant loads (e.g., a child 

in a manual wheelchair) that would be 

forced from the market if they had to be 

tested with a 600-pound load. 

The agency has already recognized 

the different use patterns between 

public and private use lifts. Public use 

lifts are more heavily used and must 

accommodate many different types of 

mobility aids while private use lifts are 

used less frequently and are usually 

purchased for a specific individual and 

mobility aid. The lower load capacity 

for private use lifts gives manufacturers 

the flexibility to produce lifts for 

individuals with smaller vehicles or 

smaller load requirements. When an 

individual purchases or is prescribed a 

new vehicle equipped with a platform 

lift, the user must rely on present and 

anticipated needs in order to obtain a 

lift that best suits that individual. 

Further, S6.7.8.4 of FMVSS No. 403 

requires that a lift’s rated load must 

appear near the lift controls in addition 

to the statement ‘‘DOT—Private Use 

Lift.’’ This information must also appear 

in the vehicle owner’s manual insert. 

The load rating requirements 

established under the final rule provide 

more flexibility to lift manufacturers 

and more options to private lift users. At 

the same time, the standard ensures that 

users are aware of the load limitations 

of each lift. Therefore, the agency is 

maintaining a minimum 400-pound 

load capacity requirement for private 

use lifts. However, the 400-pound 

minimum load capacity does not 

prevent an individual from installing a 

lift with a higher load capacity. An 

individual could even install a lift 

certified to the public lift requirements.

L. Threshold Warning Signal 

Under the final rule, private use lifts 

are required to have either an audible or 

visual threshold warning, while public 

use lifts are required to have both an 

audible and visual threshold warning. A 

threshold warning signal warns a lift 

user exiting a vehicle that the lift 

platform is more than one inch below 

the vehicle’s floor reference plane and 

the platform threshold area is occupied 

by a portion of the lift user’s body or 

mobility aid. The warning is to prevent 

users from exiting a vehicle when the 

platform is not in position. 

Prevost petitioned the agency to 

eliminate the requirement for public use 

lifts to be equipped with both audio and 

visual threshold alarms. It indicated that 

trained drivers are always present while 

a lift is in operation and maintained that 

there are no dangers that justify a 

warning signal. Prevost argued that on 

their vehicles, the lift control panel is 

located just beside the lift and as soon 

as the lift user is inside the coach, the 

driver lowers the platform and shuts the 

door. It stated that because of this 

procedure, there is no danger that 

would warrant the need for threshold 

alarms. 

Agency response: The basic threshold 

warning requirement in FMVSS No. 403 

was derived from the SAE lift standard.7

In private use applications, the specific 

lift user and his or her mobility aid are 

known quantities and the lift is usually 

purchased for that person’s particular 

needs. In public use applications, lift 

users and their mobility aids are 

unknown quantities. The lift system is 

used by a wide variety of persons with 

various disabilities, impairments and 

mobility aids. Thus, the requirement of 

both visual and audible threshold 

warnings signals on public use vehicles 

equipped with lifts, is intended to 

provide a threshold warning system that 

will benefit the majority of public lift 

users.

As explained in the preamble of the 

final rule, NHTSA does not have the 

authority to regulate drivers or driver 

training. We can only regulate vehicles 

and vehicle equipment. Requirements 

and performance tests are written to 

further safety whether there is a trained 

driver/assistant present or not. In the 

public use environment, when lift users 

are positioned on the vehicle threshold 

area and are preparing to move onto the 

lift platform, it is important that they be 

warned when the platform is more than 

one inch below the vehicle floor level. 

Considering the wide variety of persons 

with various disabilities that a public 

use lift must accommodate and the 

height of the vehicle threshold above 

the ground, particularly on motor 

coaches, it is reasonable to require both 

audible and visual threshold-warning 

alarms. Therefore, the agency is denying 

Prevost’s petition with regard to this 

issue. 

M. Wheelchair Restraint Standards 

In its petition for reconsideration of 

the Final Rule, Prevost also expressed 

concern with the lack of wheelchair 

restraint requirements in FMVSS No. 

404 to address wheelchair securement 

once a wheelchair is inside a vehicle. 

Agency response: The ADA and DOT 

regulations regarding securement of a 

mobility device remain in effect and are 

not altered by FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404. 

The ATBCB published guidelines for 

DOT to follow in implementing the 

ADA and stated, ‘‘NHTSA was the 

appropriate agency to define safety tests 

for platform lifts.’’ (Emphasis added). 

The DOT regulations contain 

requirements for platform lifts, as well 

as, securement devices for wheelchairs 

and other mobility aids (49 CFR, Part 

38, Subpart B). FMVSS Nos. 403 and 

404 apply only to platform lifts 

designed to carry persons aided by 

canes or walkers, as well as, persons 

seated in wheelchairs, scooters and 

other mobility devices into and out of 

motor vehicles. Relative to mobility aid 

securement devices, the ADA 

requirements are applicable and require 

at least two mobility aid securement 

locations on vehicles in excess of 22 feet 

in length and at least one mobility aid 

securement location on vehicles less 

than or equal to 22 feet in length. In 

addition, the ADA provides 

requirements for mobility aid 

securement devices relative to design 

load, location/size, types of mobility 

aids accommodated, orientation, 

movement, stowage, and seat belts/

shoulder harnesses. Aside from FMVSS 

No. 222, School bus passenger seating 

and crash protection, which provides 

performance tests for mobility aid 

securement devices in school buses, 

there are no other NHTSA mobility aid 

securement device requirements for 

other vehicles. 

N. Cost of Testing 

Several petitioners raised concern 

over the cost of various testing 

requirements and the cost of the 

platform lift regulations over all. Prevost 

stated that the time, cost and space 

necessary to perform the fatigue 

endurance testing required by S7.10 of 

FMVSS No. 403 would be excessive. 

Prevost indicated that a simple static 

test with a high enough safety factor 

could replace the endurance testing, 

while still assuring the robustness of the 

lift/vehicle attachment point. Further, 

Prevost expressed confusion as to 

whether it was the lift manufacturer or 

the vehicle manufacturer that is 

responsible for certifying to endurance 

requirements.

Stewart & Stevenson stated that 

permitting the fatigue endurance testing 

and the proof load testing (S7.11 of 

FMVSS No. 403) to be performed on a 

jig, as opposed to testing on a vehicle, 

would reduce the compliance costs. 

Stewart & Stevenson estimated that the 

cost of fatigue testing a platform lift on 

58850 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

8Under S6.13.1 of FMVSS No. 403 a list of 

suitable vehicles must appear in the installation 

instructions. Vehicles may be identified by listing 

the make, model and year of the vehicles for which 

the lift is suitable, or by specifying the design 

elements that would make a vehicle an appropriate 

host for the particular lift.

an over-the-road coach would cost 

$450,000 per test as compared to a cost 

of $35,000 per test using a jig. As such, 

Stewart & Stevenson requested that the 

standard be amended to clarify that 

certification testing can be performed 

through use of a jig, as opposed to 

testing performed on a vehicle. 

Generally, the Braun Corporation 

disagreed with the agency’s cost 

estimate of $300 per lift to comply with 

FMVSS No. 403 and 404. The Braun 

Corporation estimated that the cost for 

complying with the electrical portions 

of the standard would alone be $300 

and that compliance with the 

mechanical aspects would be an 

additional $300. The Braun Corporation 

argued that this increase would translate 

to a retail cost of four to six times higher 

than that estimated by NHTSA and was 

concerned that higher consumer costs 

would reduce the options available to 

the end users. 

Agency response: The agency 

maintains that the compliance costs 

estimated in the Final Rule are an 

accurate estimate, given the 

incorporation of industry and ADA 

guidelines into the standards, given that 

most commercial lifts already comply 

with the industry standards, and given 

that manufacturers must already comply 

with the ADA guidelines for public use 

lifts. 

For clarification, FMVSS No. 403 is 

an equipment standard. All of the 

requirements contained therein apply to 

platform lifts and platform lift 

manufacturers. FMVSS No. 404 is a 

vehicle standard. All of the 

requirements therein apply to 

manufacturers of vehicles equipped 

with platform lifts. The lift 

manufacturer must certify that a lift 

complies with the fatigue endurance 

requirements specified in S6.5.1 of 

FMVSS No. 403 on all vehicles for 

which the lift is intended.8

The fatigue requirements in S6.5.1 

and the related performance test in 

S7.10 not only verify the integrity of the 

lift, but also verify the integrity of the 

lift’s attachment to the vehicle. 

Although lift attachment points usually 

do not move, some flexion may occur as 

the lift is cycled, which may eventually 

result in fracture and/or separation. 

Fatigue or life cycle testing is generally 

the best way to reveal such problems. 

However, the self-certification process 

established by the National Traffic and 

Motor Vehicle Safety Act permits 

manufacturers to certify compliance 

with requirements in ways other than 

performing actual tests on all lift/

vehicle combinations. Each FMVSS 

specifies performance requirements for 

the vehicle or equipment to which the 

standard applies. While manufacturers 

are not required to conduct certification 

tests in any particular manner, any 

manufacturer that wishes to base its 

certification of compliance on a test 

procedure that is different from that 

included in the standard must 

necessarily assess whether the results of 

the alternative test procedure are good 

predictors of the results of the test 

procedure specified in the standard. 

Additionally, no lift manufacturers 

provided data that would demonstrate 

costs to manufacturers greater than 

those determined by the agency in the 

final rule. The agency expects the costs 

to decrease with regards to the electrical 

interlock requirements given that an 

amendment in this notice permits lift 

manufacturers to rely on interlock 

components already in companion 

vehicles. This will reduce the design 

and material costs for these systems. 

III. Corrections 

This document corrects several errors 

in the Final Rule. Lift-U noted that the 

final rule erroneously listed the 

threshold warning test in S7.4 of 

FMVSS No. 403 as a test that can be 

performed on a test jig when in fact, the 

procedure in S7.4 is performed on a lift/

vehicle combination. Therefore, the 

regulatory text has been appropriately 

amended. 

Further, the wheelchair retention 

device impact test, S7.7.1, to which the 

edge guard test was added, may be 

performed on a jig. The added edge 

guard test adopted by this document, 

S7.7.4, specifies testing on a lift/vehicle 

combination. The regulatory language 

has been amended in S7 to reflect these 

additions. 

Lift-U also brought to our attention an 

error in S6.2.1 of FMVSS No. 403. The 

first sentence of S6.2.1 states, 

‘‘Throughout the range of passenger 

operation and during the lift operations 

specified in S7.6, the platform lift must 

meet the requirements of S6.2.2 through 

S6.2.4.’’ S7.6 is the test for occupancy 

of the inner-roll stop and interlock 

function. S6.2.1 was intended to 

reference operations in S7.9, Static load 

test I—working load. S6.2.1 is amended 

accordingly. Additionally, S7.1.1 is 

amended to properly reference the 

appropriate load test provisions. 

S7.9 is referenced throughout FMVSS 

No. 403. The interlock requirements in 

S6.10.2.3 references the operations in 

S7.9.7 and S7.9.8 as a test procedure. 

S6.10.2.3 requires that a platform not 

stow when the test block specified in 

S7.1.4 is placed with its narrow side 

down on any portion of the useable 

surface of the platform. However, the 

procedure in S7.9.7 that is referenced 

requires centering the load on the 

platform. The procedures in S6.10.2.3 

and S7.9.7 are conflicting. To eliminate 

confusion, the references to S7.9.7 and 

S7.9.8 are removed from S6.10.2.3. 

S6.10.2.3 continues to reference the test 

device in S7.1.4, but the platform 

positioning procedures have been 

placed directly in S6.10.2.3, instead of 

relying on cross-referenced procedures. 

Additionally, this document corrects 

several other minor errors. S6.2.4, 

Maximum noise level of public use lifts,

erroneously refers to S6.4.2.2, which 

describes the operating volume for 

private use lifts. S7.7.2.2 is intended to 

set the lowest point of the footrests to 

a height of 50 mm, not 501 mm. S7.14.1 

is intended to reference S7.14.2 through 

S14.4.4. Each of these sections has been 

amended accordingly. S6.4.9.3, S6.4.9.9, 

S7.7.4.1, and S7.13.2 are amended to 

provide consistency in the conversion of 

measurements to metric through out the 

standard. 

IV. Effective Date 

The amendments made in this rule 

are effective December 27, 2004, the 

same date the FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 

become effective. The final rule, which 

was published December 27, 2002, 

provided a two-year lead time in order 

to allow manufacturers sufficient time 

to comply with the requirements of 

FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404. The 

amendments made to FMVSS Nos. 403 

and 404 in this document provide 

manufacturers more flexibility in 

complying with these standards. As 

such, manufacturers should be able to 

comply with the amended standard at 

the same time they are required to 

comply with FMVSS No. 403 and 404. 

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993), provides for making 

determinations whether a regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) review and to the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely 

to result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 58851

9 Voluntary consensus standards are technical 

standards developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies. Technical standards 

are defined by the NTTAA as ‘‘performance-based 

or design-specific technical specifications and 

related management systems practices.’’ They 

Continued

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

This rulemaking document was not 

reviewed under Executive Order 12866. 

It is not significant within the meaning 

of the DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures. The December 2002 final 

rule was classified as significant 

because of the public policy 

consideration involved, as opposed to 

the economic implications. This 

document does not affect the public 

policy implications of the final rule. 

This document clarifies the application 

of FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 as well as 

provides further flexibility in 

compliance. 

The agency has concluded that the 

impacts of today’s amendments are so 

minimal that a full regulatory evaluation 

is not required. Readers who are 

interested in the overall costs and 

benefits of the platform lift requirements 

are referred to the agency’s Final 

Economic Assessment for the December 

2002 final rule (Docket No. NHTSA–

2002–13917–3). NHTSA has determined 

that today’s rule does not change the 

costs and benefits estimated in the Final 

Economic Assessment. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

We have considered the effects of this 

rulemaking action under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 

This action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small businesses because it 

does not significantly change the costs 

of the December 2002 final rule. This 

action clarifies the requirements and 

test procedures of FMVSS Nos. 403 and 

404, in part, through removing 

requirements not appropriate for certain 

platform lift designs. Additionally, this 

action provides additional flexibility for 

manufacturers by allowing lift 

manufacturers to rely on existing 

vehicle components to comply with the 

interlock requirements and through the 

adoption of a compliance alternative to 

the edge guard requirement. 

C. National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed these 

amendments for the purposes of the 

National Environmental Policy Act and 

determined that they will not have any 

significant impact on the quality of the 

human environment. 

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

The agency has analyzed this 

rulemaking in accordance with the 

principles and criteria contained in 

Executive Order 13132 and has 

determined that it does not have 

sufficient federalism implications to 

warrant consultation with State and 

local officials or the preparation of a 

federalism summary impact statement. 

The final rule has no substantial effects 

on the States, or on the current FederalState relationship, or on the current 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various local 

officials. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

more than $100 million annually 

(adjusted for inflation with base year of 

1995). This action will not increase the 

cost of compliance with FMVSS Nos. 

403 and 404 as adopted in the December 

2002 Final Rule. 

F. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

This final rule does not have any 

retroactive effect. Under section 49 

U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor 

vehicle safety standard is in effect, a 

state may not adopt or maintain a safety 

standard applicable to the same aspect 

of performance which is not identical to 

the Federal standard, except to the 

extent that the state requirement 

imposes a higher level of performance 

and applies only to vehicles procured 

for the State’s use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets 

forth a procedure for judicial review of 

final rules establishing, amending or 

revoking Federal motor vehicle safety 

standards. That section does not require 

submission of a petition for 

reconsideration or other administrative 

proceedings before parties may file suit 

in court. 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

by a Federal agency unless the 

collection displays a valid OMB control 

number. The information disclosure 

requirements of FMVSS No. 403 and 

FMVSS No. 404 were granted OMB 

clearance; OMB No. 2127–0621. The 

amendments made to those standards 

do not result in any new information or 

information disclosure requirements. 

H. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

The Department of Transportation 

assigns a regulation identifier number 

(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in 

the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. You may use the RIN contained in 

the heading at the beginning of this 

document to find this action in the 

Unified Agenda. 

I. Plain Language 

Executive Order 12866 requires each 

agency to write all rules in plain 

language. Today’s rule has been written 

with that directive in mind. We note 

that many of the requirements of today’s 

rule are technical in nature. As such, 

they may require some understanding of 

technical terminology. We expect those 

parties directly affected by today’s rule, 

i.e., platform lift manufacturers and 

vehicle manufacturers to be familiar 

with such terminology. 

J. Executive Order 13045 

Executive Order 13045 applies to any 

rule that: (1) Is determined to be 

‘‘economically significant’’ as defined 

under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental, health or safety risk that 

NHTSA has reason to believe may have 

a disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

we must evaluate the environmental 

health or safety effects of the planned 

rule on children, and explain why the 

planned regulation is preferable to other 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives considered by us. 

This rulemaking does not directly 

involve health risks that 

disproportionately affect children. 

K. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to 

evaluate and use existing voluntary 

consensus standards 9 in its regulatory 

58852 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

pertain to ‘‘products and processes, such as size, 

strength, or technical performance of a product, 

process or material.’’

activities unless doing so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., 

the statutory provisions regarding 

NHTSA’s vehicle safety authority) or 

otherwise impractical. In meeting that 

requirement, we are required to consult 

with voluntary, private sector, 

consensus standards bodies. Examples 

of organizations generally regarded as 

voluntary consensus standards bodies 

include the American Society for 

Testing and Materials (ASTM), the 

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), 

and the American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI). If NHTSA does not use 

available and potentially applicable 

voluntary consensus standards, we are 

required by the Act to provide Congress, 

through OMB, an explanation of the 

reasons for not using such standards.

This document adds a performance 

based compliance option for edge 

guards. The agency searched for, but did 

not find any voluntary or industry 

standards to incorporate for this 

requirement. 

L. Privacy Act 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all submissions 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment or petition (or signing the 

comment or petition, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement in the 

Federal Register published on April 11, 

2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 

19477–78) or you may visit http://

dms.dot.gov.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Tires.

■ In consideration of the foregoing, the 

final rules for 49 CFR part 571, published 

at 67 FR 79416 (December 27, 2002), 

effective beginning December 27, 2004, 

are amended as follows:

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR 

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 571 of 

Title 49 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50.

■ 2. Section 571.403 is amended as 

follows:

■ A. By revising S3, the definitions of 

‘‘deploy’’ and ‘‘stow’’ in S4, S6.2.1, 

S6.2.2.2, S6.2.4, S6.3.1, S6.3.2, S6.4.5, 

S6.4.6.1, S6.4.9.3, S6.4.9.9, S6.4.11, 

S6.5.1.1, S6.5.1.2, S6.7 through S6.7.2.2, 

S6.7.4, S6.7.5, S6.7.7, S6.10.2, S6.10.2.3, 

S7, S7.1.1, S7.1.2, S7.1.2.5, S7.1.2.6, 

S7.3.3, S7.7, S7.7.2.2, S7.10.5, S7.10.6, 

S7.13.2 and S7.14.1;

■ B. By adding S6.13.4.1, S7.1.2.11, 

S7.7.4 through S7.7.4.6; and

■ C. By removing S6.4.12.

The revisions and additions to 

§ 571.403 read as follows:

§ 571.403 Standard No. 403; Platform lift 

systems for motor vehicles.

* * * * *

S3. Application. This standard 

applies to platform lifts designed to 

carry standing passengers, who may be 

aided by canes or walkers, as well as, 

persons seated in wheelchairs, scooters 

and other mobility aids, into and out of 

motor vehicles. 

S4. Definitions.

* * * * *

Deploy means with respect to a 

platform, its movement from a stowed 

position to an extended position or, one 

of the two loading positions. With 

respect to a wheelchair retention device 

or inner roll stop, the term means the 

movement of the device or stop to a 

fully functional position intended to 

prevent a passenger from disembarking 

the platform or being pinched between 

the platform and vehicle.

* * * * *

Stow means with respect to a 

platform, its movement from a position 

within the range of passenger operation 

to the position maintained during 

normal vehicle travel; and, with respect 

to a wheelchair retention device, 

bridging device, or inner-roll stop, its 

movement from a fully functional 

position to a position maintained during 

normal vehicle travel.

* * * * *

S6.2.1 General. Throughout the 

range of passenger operation and during 

the lift operations specified in S7.9.3 

through S7.9.8, the platform lift must 

meet the requirements of S6.2.2 through 

S6.2.4. These requirements must be 

satisfied both with and without a 

standard load on the lift platform, 

except for S6.2.2.2, which must be 

satisfied without any load.

* * * * *

S6.2.2.2 Except for platform lifts that 

manually stow (fold) and deploy 

(unfold), during the stow and deploy 

operations specified in S7.9.3 through 

S7.9.8, both the vertical and horizontal 

velocity of any portion of the platform 

must be less than or equal to 305 mm 

(12 inches) per second.

* * * * *

S6.2.4 Maximum noise level of 

public use lifts. Except as provided in 

S6.1.5, throughout the range of 

passenger operation specified in S7.9.4 

through S7.9.7, the noise level of a 

public use lift may not exceed 80 dBa 

as measured at any lift operator’s 

position designated by the platform lift 

manufacturer for the intended vehicle 

and in the area on the lift defined in 

S6.4.2.1. Lift operator position 

measurements are taken at the vertical 

centerline of the control panel 30.5 cm 

(12 in) out from the face of the control 

panel. In the case of a lift with a 

pendant control (i.e., a control tethered 

to the vehicle by connective wiring), 

measurement is taken at the vertical 

centerline of the control panel 30.5 cm 

(12 in) out from the face of the control 

panel while the control panel is in its 

stowed or stored position. For the lift 

operator positions outside of the 

vehicle, measurements are taken at the 

intersection of a horizontal plane 157 

cm (62 in) above the ground and the 

vertical centerline of the face of the 

control panel after it has been extended 

30.5 cm (12 in) out from the face of the 

control panel.

* * * * *

S6.3.1 Internally mounted platform 

lifts. On platform lifts and their 

components internal to the occupant 

compartment of the vehicle or internal 

to other compartments that provide 

protection from the elements when 

stowed, attachment hardware must be 

free of ferrous corrosion on significant 

surfaces except for permissible ferrous 

corrosion, as defined in FMVSS No. 

209, at peripheral surface edges or edges 

of holes on under-floor reinforcing 

plates and washers after being subjected 

to the conditions specified in S7.3. 

Alternatively, such hardware must be 

made from corrosion-resistant steel 

containing at least 11.5 percent 

chromium per FMVSS 571.209, S5.2(a) 

or must be protected against corrosion 

by an electrodeposited coating of nickel, 

or copper and nickel with at least a 

service condition number of SC2, and 

other attachment hardware must be 

protected by an electrodeposited coating 

of nickel, or copper and nickel with a 

service condition number of SC1, in 

accordance with ASTM B456–95, but 

such hardware may not be racked for 

electroplating in locations subjected to 

maximum stress. The manufacturer 

shall select the option by the time it 

certifies the lift and may not thereafter 

select a different option for the lift. The 

lift must be accompanied by all 

attachment hardware necessary for its 

installation on a vehicle. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 58853

S6.3.2 Externally mounted platform 

lifts. On platform lifts and their 

components external to the occupant 

compartment of the vehicle and external 

to other compartments that provide 

protection from the elements when 

stowed, the lift and its components 

must be free of ferrous corrosion on 

significant surfaces except for 

permissible ferrous corrosion, as 

defined in FMVSS No. 209, at 

peripheral surface edges and edges of 

holes and continue to function properly 

after being subjected to the conditions 

specified in S7.3. Alternatively, such 

lifts and all associated hardware and 

components must be completely made 

from corrosion-resistant steel containing 

at least 11.5 percent chromium per 

FMVSS 571.209, S5.2(a). The 

manufacturer shall select the option by 

the time it certifies the lift and may not 

thereafter select a different option for 

the lift. The lift must be accompanied by 

all attachment hardware necessary for 

its installation on a vehicle.

* * * * *

S6.4.5 Platform deflection. The 

angle of the deployed platform, when 

stationary, and loaded with a standard 

load, must not exceed 4.8 degrees with 

respect to the vehicle floor and must not 

exceed 3 degrees with respect to the 

platform’s unloaded position. The 

angles are measured between a vertical 

axis from the vehicle floor and an axis 

normal to the platform center as shown 

in Figure 1.

* * * * *

S6.4.6.1 The platform lift must have 

edge guards that extend continuously 

along each side of the lift platform to 

within 75 mm (3 inches) of the edges of 

the platform that are traversed while 

entering and exiting the platform at both 

the ground and vehicle floor level 

loading positions. The edge guards must 

be parallel to the direction of 

wheelchair movement during loading 

and unloading. Alternatively, when 

tested in accordance with S7.7.4, all 

portions of the wheels of the wheelchair 

test device must remain above the 

platform surface and after the control is 

released to Neutral, at the end of each 

attempt to steer the test device off the 

platform, all wheels of the wheelchair 

test device must be in contact with the 

platform surface. The manufacturer 

shall select the option by the time it 

certifies the lift and may not thereafter 

select a different option for the lift.

* * * * *

S6.4.9.3 The graspable portion of 

each handrail may not be less than 760 

mm (30 inches) and more than 965 mm 

(38 inches) above the platform surface, 

measured vertically.

* * * * *

S6.4.9.9 When tested in accordance 

with S7.12.2, each handrail must 

withstand 1,112 N (250 lb/f) applied at 

any point and in any direction on the 

handrail without sustaining any failure, 

such as cracking, separation, fracture, or 

more than 100 mm (4 inches) of 

displacement of any point on the 

handrails relative to the platform 

surface.

* * * * *

S6.4.11 Platform slip resistance.

When tested in accordance with S7.2, 

the coefficient of friction, in any 

direction, of any part of a wet platform 

surface may not be less than 0.65.

* * * * *

S6.5.1.1 Public use lifts. Except for 

lifts that manually stow (fold) and 

deploy (unfold), public use lifts must 

remain operable when operated through 

a total of 15,600 cycles: 7,800 unloaded 

Raise/Lower and Stow/Deploy 

operations and 7,800 loaded Raise/

Lower operations as specified in S7.10. 

Public use lifts that manually stow 

(fold) and deploy (unfold) must remain 

operable when operated through a total 

of 15,600 cycles: 7,800 unloaded Raise/

Lower operations and 7,800 loaded 

Raise/Lower operations. No separation, 

fracture, or breakage of any vehicle or 

lift component may occur as a result of 

conducting the fatigue test in S7.10. 

S6.5.1.2 Private use lifts. Except for 

lifts that manually stow (fold) and 

deploy (unfold), private use lifts must 

remain operable when operated through 

a total of 4,400 cycles: 2,200 unloaded 

Raise/Lower and Stow/Deploy 

operations and 2,200 loaded Raise/

Lower operations as specified in S7.10. 

Private use lifts that manually stow 

(fold) and deploy (unfold) must remain 

operable when operated through a total 

of 4,400 cycles: 2,200 unloaded Raise/

Lower operations and 2,200 loaded 

Raise/Lower operations. No separation, 

fracture, or breakage of any vehicle or 

lift component may occur as a result of 

conducting the fatigue test in S7.10.

* * * * *

S6.7 Control panel switches.

S6.7.1 The platform lift must meet 

the requirements of S6.7.2 through 

S6.7.8 and, when operated by means of 

the control panel switches specified in 

S6.7.2, must perform the lift operations 

specified in S7.9. 

S6.7.2 The platform lift system must 

have control panel switches that 

perform not less than the following 

functions: (platform lifts that manually 

stow (fold) and deploy (unfold) are 

exempt from S6.7.2.2 and S6.7.2.5). 

S6.7.2.1 Enables and disables the lift 

control panel switches. This function 

must be identified as ‘‘POWER’’ if 

located on the control. The POWER 

function must have two states: ‘‘ON’’

and ‘‘OFF’’. The ‘‘ON’’ state must allow 

platform lift operation. When the 

POWER function is in the ‘‘ON’’ state, 

an indicator light on the controls must 

illuminate. The ‘‘OFF’’ state must 

prevent lift operation and must turn off 

the indicator light. Verification with this 

requirement is made throughout the lift 

operations specified in S7.9.3 through 

S7.9.8. 

S6.7.2.2 Moves the lift from a 

stowed position to an extended position 

or, to one of the two loading positions. 

This function must be identified as 

‘‘DEPLOY’’ or ‘‘UNFOLD’’ on the 

control.

* * * * *

S6.7.4 Except for the POWER 

function described in S6.7.2.1, the 

control panel switches specified in 

S6.7.2 must prevent the simultaneous 

performance of more than one function. 

Verification with this requirement is 

made throughout the lift operations 

specified in S7.9.3 through S7.9.8. 

S6.7.5 Any single-point failure in 

the control panel switches may not 

prevent the operation of any of the 

interlocks as specified in S6.10.

* * * * *

S6.7.7 Control location for public 

use lifts: In public use lifts, except for 

the backup operation specified in S6.9, 

all control panel switches must be 

positioned together and in a location 

such that the lift operator has a direct, 

unobstructed view of the platform lift 

passenger and the passenger’s mobility 

aid, if applicable. Verification with this 

requirement is made throughout the lift 

operations specified in S7.9.3 through 

S7.9.8. Additional controls may be 

positioned in other locations.

* * * * *

S6.10.2 The platform lift system 

must have interlocks or operate in such 

a manner when installed according to 

the installation instructions, as to 

prevent:

* * * * *

S6.10.2.3 Stowing of the platform 

lift when occupied by portions of a 

passenger’s body, and/or a mobility aid. 

Platform lifts designed to be occupied 

while stowed and platform lifts that 

manually stow (fold) are excluded from 

this requirement. Verification with this 

requirement is made using the test 

device specified in S7.1.4. Move the 

deployed platform lift to a position 

within the range of passenger operation 

where it will stow if the control 

specified in S6.7.2.5 is actuated. Place 

58854 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

the test device specified in S7.1.4 on its 

narrowest side on any portion of the 

platform surface that coincides with the 

unobstructed platform operating volume 

described in S6.4.2. Using the operator 

control specified in S7.7.2.5, attempt to 

stow the lift. The interlock must prevent 

the lift from stowing.

* * * * *

S6.13.4.1 Installation instructions 

for public use lifts must contain the 

statement ‘‘Public use vehicle 

manufacturers are responsible for 

complying with the lift lighting 

requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard No. 404, Platform Lift 

Installations in Motor Vehicles (49 CFR 

571.404).’’

* * * * *

S7. Test conditions and procedures.

Each platform lift must be capable of 

meeting all of the tests specified in this 

standard, both separately, and in the 

sequence specified in this section. The 

tests specified in S7.4, S7.7.4 and S7.8 

through S7.11 are performed on a single 

lift and vehicle combination. The tests 

specified in S7.2, S7.3, S7.5, S7.6, 

S7.7.1 and S7.12 through S7.14 may be 

performed with the lift installed on a 

test jig rather than on a vehicle. Tests of 

requirements in S6.1 through S6.11 may 

be performed on a single lift and vehicle 

combination, except for the 

requirements of S6.5.3. Attachment 

hardware may be replaced if damaged 

by removal and reinstallation of the lift 

between a test jig and vehicle.

* * * * *

S7.1.1 Test pallet and load. The 

surface of the test pallet that rests on the 

platform used for the tests specified in 

S7.9 through S7.11 and S7.14 has sides 

that measure between 660 mm (26 in) 

and 686 mm (27 in). For the tests 

specified in S7.9 and S7.10, the test 

pallet is made of a rectangular steel 

plate of uniform thickness and the load 

that rests on the test pallet is made of 

rectangular steel plate(s) of uniform 

thickness and sides that measure 

between 533 mm (21 in) and 686 mm 

(27 in). The standard test load that rests 

on the pallet is defined in S4. 

S7.1.2 Wheelchair test device. The 

test device is an unloaded power 

wheelchair whose size is appropriate for 

a 95th percentile male and that has the 

dimensions, configuration and 

components described in S7.1.2.1 

through S7.1.2.11. If the dimension in 

S7.1.2.9 is measured for a particular 

wheelchair by determining its tipping 

angle, the batteries are prevented from 

moving from their original position.

* * * * *

S7.1.2.5 Two pneumatic rear tires 

with a diameter not less than 495 mm 

(19.5 in) and not more than 521 mm 

(20.5 in) inflated to the wheelchair 

manufacturer’s recommended pressure 

or if no recommendation exists, to the 

maximum pressure that appears on the 

sidewall of the tire; 

S7.1.2.6 Two pneumatic front tires 

with a diameter not less than 190 mm 

(7.5 in) and not more than 216 mm (8.5 

in) inflated to the wheelchair 

manufacturer’s recommended pressure 

or if no recommendation exists, to the 

maximum pressure that appears on the 

sidewall of the tire;

* * * * *

S7.1.2.11 Batteries with a charge not 

less than 75 percent of their rated 

nominal capacity (for tests that require 

use of the wheelchair’s propulsion 

system).

* * * * *

S7.3.3 For attachment hardware 

located within the occupant 

compartment of the motor vehicle or 

internal to other compartments that 

provide protection from the elements 

and not at or near the floor of the 

compartment, the period of the test is 25 

hours, consisting of one period of 24 

hours exposure to salt spray followed by 

one hour drying.

* * * * *

S7.7 Wheelchair retention device 

impact test and edge guard test.

* * * * *

S7.7.2.2 If the wheelchair retention 

device is an outer barrier, the footrests 

are adjusted such that at their lowest 

point they have a height 25 mm ± 2 mm 

(1 in ± 0.08 in) less than the outer 

barrier. If the wheelchair retention 

device is not an outer barrier, the 

footrests are adjusted such that at their 

lowest point they have a height 50 mm 

± 2 mm (2 in ± 0.08 in) above the 

platform.

* * * * *

S7.7.4 Edge Guard Test. Determine 

compliance with S6.4.6 using the test 

device specified in S7.1.2 by performing 

the test procedure specified in S7.7.4.1 

through S7.7.4.6. During the edge guard 

tests, remove the footrests from the 

wheelchair test device. 

S7.7.4.1 Position the platform 

surface 90 mm ± 10 mm (3.5 in ± 0.4 in) 

above the ground level loading position. 

S7.7.4.2 Place the test device on the 

platform surface with its plane of 

symmetry coincident with the lift 

reference plane within ± 10 mm (± 0.4 

in), its forward direction of travel 

inboard toward the vehicle, and its 

position on the platform as far rearward 

as the wheelchair retention device or 

outer barrier will allow it to be placed. 

S7.7.4.3 Adjust the control of the 

test device to a setting that provides 

maximum acceleration and steer the test 

device from side-to-side and corner-tocorner of the lift platform, attempting to 

steer the test device off the platform. 

After each attempt, when the 

wheelchair test device stalls due to 

contact with a barrier, release the 

control to Neutral and realign the test 

device to the starting position. Repeat 

this sequence at any level that is greater 

than 90 mm ± 10 mm (3.5 in ± 0.4 in) 

above the ground level loading position 

and less than 38 mm ± 10 mm (1.5 in 

± 0.4 in) below the vehicle floor level 

loading position. Repeat this sequence 

at 38 mm ± 10 mm (1.5 in ± 0.4 in) 

below the vehicle floor level loading 

position. 

S7.7.4.4 Next position the platform 

surface 38 mm ± 10 mm (1.5 in ± 0.4 in) 

below the vehicle floor level loading 

position. 

S7.7.4.5 Reposition the test device 

on the platform surface with its plane of 

symmetry coincident with the lift 

reference plane within ± 10 mm (± 0.4 

in), its forward direction of travel 

outboard away from the vehicle, and its 

position on the platform as far rearward 

as the wheelchair inner roll-stop or 

vehicle body will allow it to be placed. 

S7.7.4.6 Adjust the control of the 

test device to a setting that provides 

maximum acceleration and steer the test 

device from side-to-side and corner-tocorner of the lift platform, attempting to 

steer the test device off the platform. 

After each attempt, when the 

wheelchair test device stalls due to 

contact with a barrier, release the 

control to Neutral and realign the test 

device to the starting position. Repeat 

this sequence at any level that is greater 

than 90 mm ± 10 mm (3.5 in ± 0.4 in) 

above the ground level loading position 

and less than 38 mm ± 10 mm (1.5 in 

± 0.4 in) below the vehicle floor level 

loading position. Repeat this sequence 

at 38 mm ± 10 mm (1.5 in ± 0.4 in) 

below the vehicle floor level loading 

position.

* * * * *

S7.10.5 Public use lifts: Using the 

lift controls specified in S6.7.2, perform 

the operations specified in S7.10.5.1 

through S7.10.5.3 in the order they are 

given. Public use lifts that manually 

stow (fold) and deploy (unfold) are not 

required to perform the stow and deploy 

portions of the tests.

* * * * *

S7.10.6 Private use lifts: Using the 

lift controls specified in S6.7.2, perform 

the operation specified in S7.10.6.1 

through S7.10.6.3 in the order they are 

given. Private use lifts that manually 

stow (fold) and deploy (unfold) are not 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 58855

required to perform the stow and deploy 

portions of the tests.

* * * * *

S7.13.2 Position the platform surface 

90 mm ± 10 mm (3.5 in ± 0.4 in) above 

the ground level loading position. 

Apply 7,117 N (1,600 lbf) to the 

wheelchair retention device in a 

direction parallel to both the platform 

lift and platform reference planes. 

Attain the force within 1 minute after 

beginning to apply it.

* * * * *

S7.14.1 Perform the test procedures 

as specified in S7.14.2 through S7.14.4 

to determine compliance with S6.5.3.

* * * * *

■ 3. Amend § 571.404 by revising S3 and 

S4.3 and adding S4.1.5 to read as 

follows:

§ 571.404 Standard No. 404; Platform lift 

installations in motor vehicles.

* * * * *

S3. Application. This standard 

applies to motor vehicles equipped with 

a platform lift designed to carry 

standing passengers who may be aided 

by canes or walkers, as well as, persons 

seated in wheelchairs, scooters and 

other mobility aids, into and out of the 

vehicle.

* * * * *

S4.1.5 Platform lighting on public 

use lifts. Public use lifts must have a 

light or a set of lights that provide at 

least 54 lm/m2 (5 lm/sqft) of luminance 

on all portions of the surface of the 

platform, throughout the range of 

passenger operation. The luminance on 

all portions of the surface of the 

passenger-unloading ramp at ground 

level must be at least 11 lm/m2 (1 lm/

sqft).

* * * * *

S4.3 Control panel switches.

* * * * *

Issued: September 24, 2004. 

Jeffrey W. Runge, 

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 04–21976 Filed 9–30–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board 

49 CFR Part 1002 

[STB Ex Parte No. 542 (Sub–No. 11)] 

Regulations Governing Fees for 

Services Performed in Connection 

With Licensing and Related Services—

2004 Update

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, 

DOT.

ACTION: Final rules.

SUMMARY: The Board adopts its 2004 

User Fee Update and revises its fee 

schedule to recover the costs associated 

with the January 2004 Government 

salary increases and to reflect changes 

in overhead costs to the Board.

EFFECTIVE DATE: These rules are effective 

October 31, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David T. Groves, (202) 565–1551, or 

Anne Quinlan, (202) 565–1727. [TDD 

for the hearing impaired: 1–800–877–

8339.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Board’s regulations at 49 CFR 1002.3 

require that the Board’s user fee 

schedule be updated annually. The 

regulation at 49 CFR 1002.3(a) provides 

that the entire fee schedule or selected 

fees can be modified more than once a 

year, if necessary. Fees are revised based 

on the cost study formula set forth at 49 

CFR 1002.3(d). 

Because Board employees received a 

salary increase of 4.42% in January 

2004, the Board is updating its user fees 

to recover the increased personnel costs. 

With certain exceptions, all fees, 

including those recently adopted or 

amended in Regulations Governing Fees 

For Services Performed In Connection 

With Licensing And Related Services—

2002 New Fees, STB Ex Parte No. 542 

(Sub-No. 4) (STB served Mar. 29, 2004) 

will be updated based on the cost 

formula contained in 49 CFR 1002.3(d). 

In addition, changes to the overhead 

costs borne by the Board are reflected in 

the revised fee schedule. 

The fee increases adopted here result 

from the mechanical application of the 

update formula in 49 CFR 1002.3(d), 

which was adopted through notice and 

comment procedures in Regulations 

Governing Fees for Services—1987 

Update, 4 I.C.C.2d 137 (1987). No new 

fees are being proposed in this 

proceeding. Therefore, the Board finds 

that notice and comment are 

unnecessary for this proceeding. See 

Regulations Governing Fees For 

Services—1990 Update, 7 I.C.C.2d 3 

(1990); Regulations Governing Fees For 

Services—1991 Update, 8 I.C.C.2d 13 

(1991); and Regulations Governing Fees 

For Services—1993 Update, 9 I.C.C.2d 

855 (1993). 

The Board concludes that the fee 

changes adopted here will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

because the Board’s regulations provide 

for waiver of filing fees for those entities 

that can make the required showing of 

financial hardship. 

Additional information is contained 

in the Board’s decision. To obtain a free 

copy of the full decision, visit the 

Board’s Web site at http://

www.stb.dot.gov or call the Board’s 

Information Officer at (202) 565–1500. 

To purchase a copy of the decision, 

write to, call, e-mail, or pick up in 

person from ASAP Document Solutions, 

9332 Annapolis Road, Suite 103 

Lanham, Maryland 20706, (301) 577–

2600, asapdc@verizon.net. [Assistance 

for the hearing impaired is available 

through Federal Information Relay 

Services (FIRS): (800) 877–8339.]

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1002 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Common carriers, Freedom 

of information, User fees.

Decided: September 24, 2004. 

By the Board, Chairman Nober, Vice 

Chairman Mulvey and Commissioner 

Buttrey. 

Vernon A. Williams, 

Secretary.

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, title 49, chapter X, part 1002, 

of the Code of Federal Regulations is 

amended as follows:

PART 1002—FEES

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1002 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A) and 553; 

31 U.S.C. 9701 and 49 U.S.C. 721(a).

■ 2. Section 1002.1 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) through (d) and 

(f)(1); the table in paragraph (g)(6); and 

paragraph (g)(7) to read as follows:

§ 1002.1 Fees for record search, review, 

copying, certification, and related services.

* * * * *

(a) Certificate of the Secretary, $13.00. 

(b) Service involved in examination of 

tariffs or schedules for preparation of 

certified copies of tariffs or schedules or 

extracts therefrom at the rate of $33.00 

per hour. 

(c) Service involved in checking 

records to be certified to determine 

authenticity, including clerical work, 

etc., incidental thereto, at the rate of 

$23.00 per hour. 

(d) Photocopies of tariffs, reports, and 

other public documents, at the rate of 

$1.10 per letter or legal size exposure. 

A minimum charge of $5.50 will be 

made for this service.

* * * * *

(f) * * * 

(1) A fee of $58.00 per hour for 

professional staff time will be charged 

when it is required to fulfill a request 

for ADP data.

* * * * *