[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 190 (Friday, October 1, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58843-58855]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-21976]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2004-19209]
RIN 2127-AJ18


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Platform Lifts for Motor 
Vehicles, Platform Lift Installations in Motor Vehicles

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document responds to petitions for reconsideration of the 
December 2002 final rule that established two new Federal motor vehicle 
safety standards, one for platform lifts and one for vehicles equipped 
with such lifts. The purpose of these standards is to prevent injuries 
and fatalities during lift operation. The agency received several 
petitions for reconsideration of the December 2002 final rule from 
platform lift manufacturers, vehicle manufacturers, and a 
transportation safety research organization. In response to these 
petitions, the agency is clarifying the applicability of the standards. 
This document also amends the definitions of certain operational 
functions, the requirements for lift lighting on public lifts, the 
interlock requirements, compliance procedures for lifts that manually 
deploy/stow, the environmental resistance requirements, the edge guard 
requirements, the wheelchair test device specifications, and the 
location requirements for public lift controls.

DATES: Effective Dates: The amendments in this rule are effective 
December 27, 2004.
    Petitions: Petitions for reconsideration must be received by 
November 15, 2004, and should refer to this docket and the notice 
number of this document and be submitted to: Administrator, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., 
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact 
William Evans, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, at (202) 366-2272.
    For legal issues, you may contact Christopher Calamita, Office of 
Chief Counsel, at (202) 366-2992, and fax them at (202) 366-3820.
    You may send mail to these officials at the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 
20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
    A. Special Purpose Lifts
    B. Definitions of ``Deploy'' and ``Stow''
    C. Platform Lift Lighting on Public Use Lifts
    D. Interlock Sensors
    E. Lifts That Manually Stow and Deploy
    F. Environmental Resistance
    G. Platform Deflection
    H. Edge Guards
    I. Test Device
    J. Control Systems
    K. Minimum Load Requirements for Private Use Lifts
    L. Threshold Warning Signal
    M. Wheelchair Restraint Standards
    N. Cost of Testing
III. Corrections
IV. Effective Date
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Background

    On December 27, 2002, the agency published in the Federal Register 
(67 FR 79416) a final rule establishing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard (FMVSS) No. 403, Platform lift systems for motor vehicles, and 
FMVSS No. 404, Platform lift installation on motor vehicles (final 
rule), effective December 27, 2004. These two new standards provide 
practicable, performance based requirements and compliance procedures 
for the regulations promulgated by the DOT under the American with 
Disabilities Act \1\ (ADA). FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 provide that only 
lift systems that comply with objective safety requirements may be 
placed in service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Pub. L. 101-336, 42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq. The ADA directed 
the DOT to issue regulations to implement the transportation vehicle 
provisions that pertain to vehicles used by the public. Titles II 
and III of the ADA set specific requirements for vehicles purchased 
by municipalities for use in fixed route bus systems and vehicles 
purchased by private entities for use in public transportation to 
provide a level of accessibility and usability for individuals with 
disabilities. 42 U.S.C. 12204.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMVSS No. 403 establishes requirements for platform lifts that are

[[Page 58844]]

designed to carry passengers who rely on wheelchairs, scooters, canes, 
and other mobility aid devices in entering and exiting motor vehicles. 
The standard requires that these lifts meet minimum platform dimensions 
and maximum size limits for platform protrusions and gaps between the 
platform and either the vehicle floor or the ground. The standard also 
requires handrails, a threshold warning signal, and retaining barriers. 
Performance tests are specified for wheelchair retention on the 
platform, lift strength, and platform slip resistance requirements. A 
set of interlocks is prescribed to prevent accidental movement of a 
lift and the vehicle on which a lift is installed.
    FMVSS No. 404 establishes requirements for vehicles equipped with 
platform lifts. The lifts must be certified as meeting FMVSS No. 403. 
The vehicle standard requires that the lifts be installed according to 
the lift manufacturer's instructions and must continue to meet all of 
the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 403. The standard also 
required that specific information is made available to lift users.
    Recognizing the different usage patterns of platform lifts on 
public transit versus that of platform lifts for individual use, the 
agency established separate requirements for public use lifts and 
private use lifts. S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404 requires that lift-equipped 
buses, school buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles other than 
motor homes with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 4,536 kg 
(10,000 lb) must be equipped with a lift certified to all applicable 
public use lift requirements set forth in FMVSS No. 403. Since lifts on 
these vehicles will generally be subject to more stress and cyclic 
loads and will be used by more and varied populations, more 
requirements as to platform size, control, and handrails are 
appropriate.
    As required by the ADA, FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 are consistent with 
the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (ATBCB) 
guidelines published on September 6, 1991 (56 FR 45530). In order to 
provide manufacturers sufficient time to meet any new requirements 
established in FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404, the agency provided a two-year 
lead time. These standards will become effective December 27, 2004.

II. Petitions for Reconsideration

    In response to the final rule, the agency received six petitions 
for reconsideration from platform lift manufacturers, vehicle 
manufacturers, and a transportation safety research organization. 
Specifically, petitions were received from: Lift-U, a platform lift 
manufacturer; Stewart & Stevenson, a platform lift manufacturer; Braun 
Industries Incorporated (Braun), an ambulance and ``mobile intensive 
care and a neo-natal land vehicles'' manufacturer; Braun Corporation 
(Braun Corp), a lift and vehicle manufacturer; Mac's Lift Gate, Inc. 
(Mac's Lift Gate), a manufacturer of special purpose lifts; Prevost 
Car, Inc. (Prevost), an over-the-road bus manufacturer; and the 
University of Pittsburgh Engineering Research Center on Wheelchair 
Transportation Safety (University of Pittsburgh), a transportation 
safety research organization.
    The petitioners requested the agency establish an exclusion for 
special purpose lifts, and amend the definitions of ``deploy'' and 
``stow,'' the platform lift lighting requirements, the interlock 
requirements, the fatigue endurance requirement, the environmental 
resistance requirements, the platform deflection requirements, the edge 
guard requirements, control system requirements, the minimum load 
standard for private lifts, and the threshold warning requirements.
    In response to these petitions, the agency is amending FMVSS Nos. 
403 and 404 to clarify the applicability of these standards so that 
they do not apply to special purpose lifts and lifts installed on 
ambulances, redefine ``deploy'' and ``stow'' to be less design 
restrictive, establish the lighting requirements as a vehicle 
requirement; permit lift manufacturers to rely on existing vehicle 
components to comply with the interlock requirements, exclude lifts 
that manually deploy and stow from specified lift performance 
requirements, permit a wider range of platform lift designs to comply 
with environmental resistance requirements for internally stowed lifts, 
provide more flexibility in the degree of platform deflection between 
the unloaded platform and the vehicle floor, reduce the required 
extension of continuous edge guards to inner platform edge, establish a 
performance based alternative to the continuous edge guard requirement, 
establish further specifications for the wheelchair test device, 
clarify the term ``control system,'' provide flexibility in the 
placement of the control system panel, and make several corrections to 
the regulatory text adopted by the final rule. The issues raised by the 
petitioners are addressed below.

A. Special Purpose Lifts

    Braun and Mac's Lift Gate petitioned the agency to exclude special 
purpose lifts and vehicles equipped with special purpose lifts from the 
requirements of FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404, respectively. The petitioners 
argued that special purpose lifts and vehicles equipped with these 
lifts are used for medical transport only, such as the transport of 
individuals on cots, transport incubators, and isolet carriers. Braun 
and Mac's Lift Gate further argued that the size and configuration of 
special purpose lift systems are designed specifically to transport 
patients in cots or isolet carriers and prevent use by individuals 
using mobility aids such as wheel chairs, scooters, or canes. The 
petitioners stated that special purpose lifts are not intended to 
accommodate individuals in wheelchairs, mobility devices or individuals 
standing. In fact, the petitioners stated, the narrow width of most 
special purpose lifts makes it impossible to use for wheelchairs and 
mobility aids such as scooters. Therefore, the petitioners argued, 
because FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 are intended to apply to lifts that 
accommodate individuals using canes, walkers, wheelchairs and mobility 
devices, it would be inappropriate to apply these regulations to lifts 
and vehicles equipped with lifts specifically designed to accommodate 
individuals for specialized medical transport.
    Agency response: The agency is clarifying the applicability 
sections of FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 to make it clear that these 
standards do not apply to lifts installed on medical transport vehicles 
for the purpose of loading and unloading cots and/or incubators, or to 
those vehicles themselves. NHTSA explained in the preamble to the final 
rule that its intent is to protect lift users aided by canes or 
walkers, as well as lift users seated in wheelchairs, scooters and 
other mobility devices in the course of ordinary transit.
    FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 are not intended to apply to systems 
involving specialized medical transport. Lifts used in specialized 
medical transport do not present the safety concerns addressed by these 
standards. The lifts described by the petitioners do not accommodate 
persons in wheelchairs, scooters, or other types of mobility devices as 
the platforms are generally far too narrow. Further, these specialized 
lifts transport individuals lying in cots and isolet carriers, and who 
generally have no control of their own mobility during transport.
    Specialized medical lifts are not used in the ordinary transport of 
people with disabilities. Accordingly, this document amends the 
applicability sections of FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 to clarify that 
special purpose lifts and the vehicles on

[[Page 58845]]

which they are installed are not regulated by these standards.

B. Definitions of ``Deploy'' and ``Stow''

    Lift-U petitioned the agency for reconsideration of the definitions 
of ``deploy'' and ``stow.'' In its petition, Lift-U stated that the 
definition of ``deploy'' in the final rule specifies that a platform 
must deploy directly to one of the two loading positions. The 
petitioner explained that some lift models ``deploy'' from a stowed 
position to an extended position within the range of passenger 
operation instead of directly to one of the two loading positions. 
Lift-U stated that under this design, the raise or lower controls must 
be actuated to move the platform after it had been ``deployed'' to 
allow loading from either the vehicle or ground level loading position. 
Lift-U argued that the current definition of ``deploy'' would have the 
effect of prohibiting this design.
    Lift-U also requested that the agency amend the definition of 
``stow.'' The petitioner explained that ``stow'' with respect to a lift 
typically means that the devices are put away or placed in a position 
maintained during normal vehicle travel. However, the ``stowed'' 
position of a wheelchair retention device, a bridging device, or an 
inner roll stop used to allow a passenger to embark or disembark the 
platform may be an intermediate or extended position beyond the 
deployed position. Lift-U requested that the definition be amended to 
reflect this design variation properly.
    Agency response: The agency grants Lift-U's petition with respect 
to the definitions of ``deploy'' and ``stow.'' While the definitions of 
``deploy'' and ``stow'' in the final rule reflect a vast majority of 
platform lift designs, the agency recognizes there are a variety of 
active and passive lift designs in existence. For example, active 
wheelchair lifts require an additional entrance for wheelchair 
passengers, while passive wheelchair lifts use existing vehicle 
entrances. When stowed, a passive lift provides steps for passengers. 
When operational a passive lift forms a platform that lifts a 
wheelchair from the ground to the level of the vehicle floor. In 
recognition of existing design variations, the agency is amending these 
definitions to be less design restrictive.
    In a typical lift design, the platform lift is mounted upright in 
the vehicle compartment. This type of lift will usually deploy directly 
to the vehicle loading position because the lift is close to this 
position when it deploys or unfolds. Some external lifts may deploy 
directly to the ground level loading position as they are close to that 
position when they deploy or unfold. However, passive lifts may deploy 
to an extended position so that they may be raised or lowered to one of 
the two loading positions. We see no safety problem with the any of 
these deployment methods so long as the maximum deployment speed is 
sufficiently slow to permit bystanders to move out of the path of a 
deploying platform lift, as required under S6.2.2.2. Accordingly, we 
are amending the definition of ``deploy'' in S4 of FMVSS No. 403 to 
reflect lift designs that move to an intermediate position when 
deployed.
    To maintain consistency throughout FMVSS No. 403, the agency is 
also amending the control system requirements in S6.7.2.2 to reflect 
that a platform lift may deploy to an intermediate position as opposed 
to deploying directly to one of the two loading positions.
    The agency also agrees with Lift-U that the position of a 
wheelchair retention device, bridging device, or inner roll stop during 
normal vehicle travel may not be the same as the position during 
passenger access to and from the platform. To reflect this design 
variety, we are amending the definition of ``stow'' in S4 of FMVSS No. 
403, with respect to wheelchair retention devices, bridging devices, 
and inner-roll stops, to refer to the positioning during normal vehicle 
travel.

C. Platform Lift Lighting on Public Use Lifts

    Under the final rule, public use platform lift manufacturers must 
provide lighting hardware along with detailed installation instructions 
that address the mounting, powering, location and positioning of 
lighting, as well as operational test procedures. The lighting 
equipment and installation instructions must permit a vehicle 
manufacturer to verify that, when installed according to the 
instructions, the lighting will be operational and meet the lighting 
requirements of FMVSS No. 403. When a lift manufacturer certifies the 
lift as complying with FMVSS No. 403, it is certifying that when the 
lighting equipment is installed as instructed on a vehicle for which 
the lift is intended (a list of suitable vehicles appears in the 
installation instructions), the lift will meet the applicable lighting 
requirements.
    In petitions for reconsideration, both Prevost and the Braun Corp 
raised concerns regarding the lighting requirements for public use 
lifts.\2\ Prevost specifically wanted to know if it is the 
responsibility of the lift manufacturer to incorporate lighting for the 
lift under FMVSS No. 403 or if it is the responsibility of the vehicle 
manufacturer to provide lighting under FMVSS No. 404.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The final rule established stricter requirements for lifts 
designed to be installed on all buses and on multi-purpose passenger 
vehicles with a gross vehicle rate rating in excess of 4,536 kg to 
reflect differences in use patterns. These lifts are defined as 
public use lifts. We again note that the requirements of the ADA 
still apply to all lifts installed on vehicles used as public 
conveyances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Braun Corp stated that identical lift products may be installed 
on a wide variety of vehicles. The Braun Corp claimed that although 
lift manufacturers can easily provide the method of interfacing 
platform lighting with the lift, they will have difficulty in 
determining the amount of lighting that will be required for each lift/
vehicle application. Thus, the Braun Corp argued that the level of 
lighting intensity is application specific and should be determined at 
the time of lift installation. It further argued that public use 
vehicle manufacturers have already accepted responsibility for 
complying with the lighting requirements of 36 CFR 1192.31.\3\ 
Therefore, the Braun Corp argued, compliance with the lighting standard 
should be the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Section 1192.31 of the ADA adopts the lighting standards 
sets forth in the ATBCB's Accessibility Guidelines for 
Transportation Vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency response: The agency structured the lighting requirements so 
that a platform lift system would be a complete, self-contained system 
ready for installation upon delivery to the vehicle manufacturer. While 
FMVSS No. 403 requires a lift manufacturer to provide the hardware and 
instructions necessary to install lighting in a manner that complies 
with the requirements of the standard, the agency explained that FMVSS 
No. 404 places the burden of complying with the lighting requirements 
on the vehicle manufacturer through compliance with the installation 
instructions (67 FR 79416, 79427).
    The agency realizes that the vehicle manufacturers have 
traditionally provided lift lighting. Additionally, public use vehicle 
manufacturers already must comply with ADA lighting standards, which 
require lighting on doorways, step wells, lifts and ramps. In some 
cases, ADA required lighting in conjunction with other pre-existing 
vehicle lighting might already meet or exceed the lighting requirements 
of S6.4.11 in FMVSS No. 403. In these

[[Page 58846]]

instances, lighting provided by a lift manufacturer would be redundant 
with efforts already required of vehicle manufacturers. For these 
reasons, we are requiring that vehicle manufacturers comply with the 
lighting requirements through vehicle lighting systems as opposed to 
the installation of lighting systems provided by a lift manufacturer. 
Accordingly, the lighting requirements are moved to FMVSS No. 404.
    Platform lift manufacturers will now be required to place a 
statement in the installation instructions stating that, ``Public use 
vehicle manufacturers are responsible for complying with the lift 
lighting requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 404, 
Platform lift installations in motor vehicles (49 CFR 571.404).'' The 
platform lift lighting requirement formerly in S6.4.11 of FMVSS No. 403 
is now a motor vehicle requirement in S4.1.5 of FMVSS No. 404. As they 
are already required to meet the applicable lighting requirements under 
the ADA, this will not be an additional burden for the vehicle 
manufacturers.

D. Interlock Sensors

    In its petition for reconsideration, the Braun Corp also raised 
issues regarding the interlock requirements in FMVSS No. 403. The final 
rule established interlock requirements to prevent the forward or 
rearward motion of a vehicle while a platform lift is deployed. The 
agency determined that the compliance responsibility for the interlock 
requirements should rest with the platform lift manufacturer, and that 
the lift manufacturer must provide information identifying the 
appropriate vehicle make/model/year for installation of a particular 
lift design. Under the final rule, the lift manufacturer must certify 
that the installation hardware is fully compatible with those vehicles.
    In response to this requirement, the Braun Corp argued that it is 
unreasonable to require a lift manufacturer to design door, brake and 
transmission interlocks to fit and immobilize all makes and models of 
vehicles. The Braun Corp explained that under current practice, lift 
manufacturers provide generic circuitry to interface with vehicle 
systems, but the design of an interlock is more appropriately the 
responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer.
    Agency response: We recognize that it may be difficult for lift 
manufacturers to provide the vehicle parts necessary for interlocks to 
work with the lift circuitry. In many cases, the vehicle sensors and 
switches needed by these interlocks may already be part of existing 
vehicle systems. It may be possible for existing vehicle components to 
send and receive signals to and from the lift as part of the interlock 
system. We do not wish to discourage the use of interlock switches and 
sensors provided by vehicle manufacturers, which may provide better 
reliability than hardware supplied by the platform lift manufacturers.
    Accordingly, the interlock requirements of FMVSS No. 403 are 
amended to permit lift manufacturers to rely on vehicle system 
components. The requirements established by this rule still require 
lift manufacturers to have prior knowledge of how a lift will interface 
with each particular vehicle model for which the lift is intended. 
However, S6.10.2 of FMVSS No. 403 is amended by this rule to relieve 
lift manufacturers from the responsibility of providing the entire 
interlock system. A platform lift manufacturer may provide less than a 
full interlock system intended to work in conjunction with a vehicle's 
existing components, as long as when the platform lift is installed 
according to the installation instructions, the interlock requirements 
of S6.10.2.1 through S6.10.2.7 are met.

E. Lifts that Manually Stow and Deploy

    The final rule established several performance requirements in 
FMVSS No. 403 that involve the stowing and deploying of lifts, 
including: S6.2.2, Maximum platform velocity; S6.5.1, Fatigue 
Endurance; and S6.10.2.3, which requires an interlock to prevent the 
platform from stowing when occupied. Stewart & Stevenson requested 
clarification as to the application of these requirements to platform 
lifts that are stowed and deployed manually. With specific regard to 
the fatigue endurance test procedure, Stewart & Stevenson indicated 
that fatigue cycling test procedures under California Title 13, 
Department of California Highway Patrol, Commercial and Technical 
Services Section do not apply the stow/deploy functions if the platform 
lift is designed to stow and deploy manually. Regarding the interlock 
requirement, Stewart & Stevenson stated that platforms which are 
manually deployed and stowed cannot be stowed when the platform is 
occupied, and therefore an interlock is not necessary.
    Agency response: The agency did not consider platform lifts 
designed to be stowed and deployed manually. When such lifts are in the 
process of stowing and deploying, the person who is manually performing 
the task is in control of the platform and the lift velocity during 
deployment or stowing. While being manually stowed or deployed, the 
platform is supported by the operator. Further, a platform that is 
stowed manually cannot by its nature be stowed until vacant. 
Accordingly, the agency has decided to exclude platform lifts that 
manually deploy/stow from the requirements relating to the stow and 
deploy functions in S6.2.2, S6.5.1, S6.10.2.3, S6.7.2, S7.10.5, and 
S7.10.6 of FMVSS No. 403.

F. Environmental Resistance

    S6.3 of FMVSS No. 403 requires platform lifts to comply with 
environmental resistance requirements that reflect conditions lifts may 
experience during actual use. Hardware on a lift that stows inside an 
occupant compartment and is protected by an electrodeposited coating of 
nickel, or copper and nickel in accordance with ASTM B456-95, does not 
need to meet the environmental testing requirement of S6.3. This 
hardware is not subject to the environmental conditions potentially 
experienced by hardware on a lift that is stowed external to the 
passenger compartment.
    Stewart & Stevenson objected to the use of the phrase ``occupant 
compartment'' when identifying the stow location of lifts excluded from 
the environmental test requirements. It claimed that some lifts stow 
within other ``sealed compartments'' such as baggage compartments and 
are equally protected from the elements as lifts that stow within the 
occupant compartment.
    Additionally, Lift-U argued that lifts and hardware made of 
stainless steel as described in S5.2 of FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt 
assemblies,\4\ should also be excluded from the environmental 
resistance test requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ S5.2(a) of FMVSS No. 209 states that, ``The test for 
corrosion resistance shall not be required for attachment hardware 
made from corrosion-resistant steel containing at least 11.5 percent 
chromium[.]''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agency response: The agency agrees with both Stewart & Stevenson 
and Lift-U. The purpose of the environmental resistance requirement is 
to test the endurance of lifts and lift components when exposed to the 
elements. Less stringent requirements should apply to a lift that is 
stowed either in the occupant compartment or some other equivalent 
compartment. In both instances, the lift is protected against the 
exposure experienced by a lift that is stowed externally. Accordingly, 
we are amending S6.3 of FMVSS No. 403 to include lifts that stow 
internal to a sealed compartment that provides protection from the 
environment in the category of ``internal lifts.'' For internal lifts, 
only the attachment hardware is tested.

[[Page 58847]]

    Further, NHTSA has concluded that stainless steel (containing at 
minimum 11.5 percent chromium by weight) should be added to the list of 
materials that exclude hardware for lifts mounted inside a sealed 
compartment from the environmental test requirements. The agency has 
recognized the corrosion resistant properties of stainless steel in 
FMVSS No. 209, which excludes hardware made of corrosion-resistant 
steel with a minimum of 11.5 percent chromium from the environmental 
test requirements. Given the corrosion resistance properties of 
stainless steel, if a lift manufacturer desires to incur the additional 
expense of making an external lift and all of its associated hardware 
and components completely out of stainless steel, we believe it is 
appropriate to exclude such a lift from the environmental resistance 
tests in S7.3 of the final rule. However, a manufacturer must select 
which option it will rely on for certification by the time it certifies 
a lift and may not thereafter select a different option.

G. Platform Deflection

    Under the platform deflection requirements in S6.4.5 of FMVSS No. 
403, the angle of a platform relative to the vehicle floor cannot be 
more than 1.8 degrees when no load is present. In addition, the loaded 
platform may not deflect so that the angle of the loaded platform is 
more than three degrees from the angle of the unloaded platform. This 
limit on deflection prevents the platform from becoming unstable when 
loaded. We note that in a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking 
(SNPRM), the agency initially proposed an unloaded deflection angle of 
one degree with respect to the vehicle floor. (65 FR 46228; July 27, 
2000). In response to the SNPRM, Lift-U commented that the one-degree 
maximum was too restrictive, and would prohibit lifts designed to 
conform to the crown of various road surfaces. Therefore, the agency 
adopted the 1.8 degree maximum permissible deflection angle relative to 
the vehicle floor.
    In responding to the final rule, Lift-U agreed with the maximum 
deflection of three degrees between the loaded and unloaded conditions. 
However, Lift-U argued that the overall maximum deflection (consisting 
of the unloaded deflection with respect to the vehicle floor plus the 
deflection between the loaded and unloaded conditions) should be a 
maximum of 4.8 degrees with no further limit on the angle of deflection 
between the unloaded platform and the vehicle floor. Lift-U stated that 
an absolute angle requirement would allow for various combinations of 
unloaded and loaded deflection angles that when summed together would 
be less than or equal to the maximum 4.8 degrees. The petitioner 
further argued that this flexibility would allow the lift to conform to 
the crown of various road surfaces when at the ground level loading 
positions. Lift-U also noted that the 4.8 degree maximum is in line 
with the ADA requirements for general access to buildings and 
therefore, persons relying on various mobility aids are familiar with 
slopes of this degree.
    Agency response: The agency is granting Lift-U's petition to amend 
the platform deflection angle requirements. We are amending the 
platform deflection requirements to eliminate the 1.8 degree 
restriction for the angle of deflection between the unloaded platform 
and the vehicle floor. The overall deflection angle requirement of a 
maximum of 4.8 degrees will remain the same, assuring that a platform 
lift will not be at too great of a slope.
    In cases in which there is no deflection upon loading, the unloaded 
deflection angle may be as high as 4.8 degrees with respect to the 
vehicle floor. The loaded deflection angle is still required to be less 
than or equal to 3 degrees with respect to the unloaded position. The 
3-degree requirement will prevent a platform from suddenly tilting too 
much when a passenger moves onto the lift.
    In all cases, the sum of the unloaded and loaded angles must not 
exceed 4.8 degrees. This permits flexibility of design and will 
eliminate the need to redesign of existing platform lifts. 
Additionally, the 4.8-degree maximum maintains consistency with the 
slope requirements for general building access under the ADA, a 
condition with which platform lift users will most likely be familiar.

H. Edge Guards

    In response to a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, Lift-U 
had requested that the agency amend the requirement for continuous edge 
guards and allow them to be present and continuous along the sides of 
the platform to within three inches from the outer platform edge. The 
three-inch allowance at the outer edge was established to facilitate 
the loading and unloading of a lift passenger when space is limited. 
Reducing the length of the edge guard allows a lift occupant to turn 
his or her mobility device when the space directly in front of the 
platform is restricted. The December 2002 final rule addressed Lift-U's 
request.
    In its petition for reconsideration, Lift-U stated that for passive 
lifts, edge guards that extend below the lowest step riser when the 
platform is stowed interfere with vehicle doors when closed. The 
petitioner further argued that edge guards within three inches of the 
inner edge of a platform may become a tripping hazard inside the bus, 
and recommended a three-inch allowance from the inner edge. It also 
stated that it may be unnecessary for edge guards to be continuous 
along the sides of a lift platform when there are obstacles such as 
handrails, retention devices and roll-stops that box the wheelchair in 
and keep it from going off the sides of the platform. It suggested 
having a performance test requirement for edge guards as an alternative 
to requiring continuous edge guards.
    Agency response: NHTSA recognizes the problems that continuous edge 
guards cause on some passive lifts, particularly with edge guards 
located within three inches of the inner edge (vehicle side) of the 
platform. The ADA and the FTA both require that edge guards must not 
interfere with maneuvering into or out of a vehicle aisle. At the same 
time, barriers should prevent any of the wheels of a wheelchair or 
mobility aid from rolling off of the platform during its operation. For 
passive lifts, edge guards that extend below the lowest step riser when 
the lift is stowed could potentially interfere with bus door operation, 
as well as present a tripping hazard to passengers. Edge guards that 
extend past a point three inches from the inner edge of the platform 
may also become a tripping hazard in the isle of a vehicle when the 
lift is stowed. The existence of such an obstacle on the inner edge of 
the platform when stowed would be in violation of ADA if it interferes 
with maneuvering into or out of the aisle.
    The three-inch allowance for the outside edge of the platform does 
not diminish safety, as the remaining edge guards and the outer 
barrier/wheelchair retention device box a wheelchair into the area of 
the platform and prevent the wheels of a mobility device from rolling 
off of the edge of the platform. For these same reasons, we see no 
safety reason for not allowing edge guards to stop within three inches 
of the inner edge of the platform. The edge guards that remain are 
adequate to prevent wheels of a mobility device from rolling off the 
edge of the platform. Accordingly, we are amending S6.4.6.1 of FMVSS 
No. 403 to require edge guards that extend continuously along each side 
of the platform lift to within three inches of the edges of the 
platform at both the ground and vehicle floor level loading positions.
    In addition, the agency agrees that permitting compliance with a

[[Page 58848]]

performance test requirement as an alternative to continuous guards 
would be less design restrictive. Therefore, the agency is establishing 
a performance test as an alternative means to comply with the edge 
guard requirements.
    The agency is amending S7.7, Wheelchair retention device impact 
test, of FMVSS No. 403 to include an edge guard performance test as an 
alternative to the continuous edge guard requirement. The test consists 
of operating a wheelchair test device from side-to-side and corner-to-
corner on the platform. At the end of each test, all wheels of the 
wheelchair test device must be in contact with the platform surface. 
During the test, the footrests are removed from the wheelchair test 
device to test for the worse case scenario. A lift with sufficient edge 
guards, handrails, wheelchair retention devices and roll-stops to box a 
mobility aid onto the platform to prevent its wheels from rolling off 
the edge of the platform will comply with the edge guard requirements.

I. Test Device

    To improve the repeatability of the newly established edge guard 
test, as well as other tests that use the wheelchair test device, the 
agency is amending S7.1.2, Wheelchair test device, to further specify 
the operating conditions. The specifications are amended to include a 
minimum level of battery charge and level of tire inflation. The agency 
is specifying that the charge on a battery be a minimum of 75 percent 
of rated nominal capacity.\5\ Because repeatability can also depend on 
proper tire inflation, the pneumatic tires of the wheelchair test 
device are to be inflated to the wheelchair manufacturer's recommended 
pressure or, if no recommendation exists, to the maximum pressure that 
appears on the sidewalls of the tires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This level is consistent with ANSI/RESNA WC/Volume 1-1998, 
Section 22: Set Up Procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Control Systems

    Lift-U requested that the agency clarify the term ``control 
system'' as used in S6.7.1 through S6.7.5 in FMVSS No. 403, stating 
that as currently used, the term may be interpreted too broadly. Lift-U 
cited S6.7.5, which states, ``Any single point failure in the control 
system may not prevent the operation of any of the interlocks as 
specified in S6.10.'' Lift-U expressed concern that in this context the 
phrase ``control system'' may be interpreted as requiring lifts to have 
redundant or back-up control systems with functional checks on start 
up.
    Lift-U also requested that the lift control location requirements 
for public use lifts in S6.7.7 be amended. As adopted in the final 
rule, S6.7.7 requires that lift controls for public use lifts, other 
than those used for backup operation, be positioned together and in a 
location such that a person facing the controls has a direct, 
unobstructed view of the platform lift passenger and the passenger's 
mobility aid, if applicable. Lift-U contends that many passive lifts 
are installed in the front doorway of buses. This installation allows 
ambulatory passengers to use steps when the lift is stowed and persons 
with disabilities to use the lift when it is deployed. Lift-U explained 
that the controls for these front door lifts are located on the vehicle 
dash. Therefore, Lift-U argued, the driver has an unobstructed view of 
the lift passenger and the passenger's mobility aid but must 
momentarily look at the dash to see the controls. The petitioner 
further argued that the requirement as written would eliminate this 
configuration, which is currently a prevalent design and does not 
present a safety problem.
    Agency response: While the control system requirements in the final 
rule were derived from ADA requirements and FTA guidelines, we agree 
that as currently used in the standard, the phrase ``control system'' 
may be interpreted in an overly broad manner. For purposes of clarity, 
the agency is replacing the phrase ``control system'' with ``control 
panel switches'' in S6.7 of FMVSS No. 403.
    Under the discussion of ``control systems'' in the final rule, the 
agency explained that ``each system would need to have a `power' 
switch, a `deploy' or `unfold' switch, an `up' switch and a ``down'' 
switch[.]'' This was intended to clarify that ``control system'' refers 
to the switches on the operator control panel. Replacing the phrase 
``control system'' with the phrase ``control panel switches'' more 
accurately reflects intent of the final rule.
    NHTSA also recognizes the restriction resulting from the 
positioning requirements for control panel switches. FTA guidelines 
indicate that the control console should be located in a position where 
the lift operator (driver) has a direct unobstructed view of the 
platform during lift operation.\6\ This does not require the operator 
to have an unobstructed view of the platform while facing the controls. 
NHTSA believes that there is no significant reduction in the level of 
safety by simply requiring that the lift operator have an unobstructed 
view of the lift passenger and passenger's mobility aid. Accordingly, 
we are amending S6.7.7 to be consistent with FTA guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ FTA, ``Guideline Specifications for Passive Lifts, Active 
Lifts, Wheelchair Ramps, and Securement Devices,'' September 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

K. Minimum Load Requirements for Private Use Lifts

    S4 of FMVSS No. 403 requires private use lifts to comply with a 
minimum standard load rating of 400 lb (181 kg) and public use lifts to 
comply with a minimum standard load rating of 600 lb (272 kg). The 
difference in standard load rating reflects the difference in use 
patterns between a private use lift and a public use lift.
    The University of Pittsburgh petitioned to have both public and 
private use lifts comply with the 600 lb (272 kg) standard load rating. 
It indicated that the average weight of 26 commonly used wheelchairs is 
199 pounds and the weight is often increased as a result of add-on 
devices such as a tilt-in-space seat. The University of Pittsburgh 
argued that when combined with the weight of a 250-pound occupant (the 
maximum occupant weight capacity of most power wheelchairs), a 400-
pound minimum load rating is likely to be inadequate. The petitioner 
further argued that the lower load capacity requirement for private use 
lifts will place an unnecessary burden on users by requiring them to 
have knowledge of their combined wheelchair-user weight in order to 
determine appropriate lift capacity. It argued that the 400-pound 
minimum does not take into account later changes in a user's mobility 
device or subsequent users that may result in the lift capacity 
becoming exceeded. The University of Pittsburgh added that the required 
``DOT-Private Use Lift'' labeling does not convey the load capacity 
associated with the lift, making it unnecessarily difficult to 
ascertain appropriate load capacity.
    Agency response: The agency is denying the University of 
Pittsburgh's request to increase the load capacity of private-use 
lifts. We note that the SNPRM for the final rule proposed a 600-pound 
standard load for testing all lifts, both private and public. This 
single standard was based on harmonization with voluntary standards and 
guidelines, as well as the fact that it was possible for the weight of 
many power wheelchair/occupant combinations to approach 491 lbs. 
(weight of a 99th percentile male and a 250 lb. powered wheelchair).
    In response to the SNPRM, several commenters requested that the 
standard be amended to permit a lower load

[[Page 58849]]

capacity for private use lifts, as private use lifts are not required 
to conform with ADA requirements or harmonize with the ADA 
Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities. Commenters 
indicated that there are lifts in existence designed for smaller 
vehicles (some minivans) and lighter wheelchair/occupant loads (e.g., a 
child in a manual wheelchair) that would be forced from the market if 
they had to be tested with a 600-pound load.
    The agency has already recognized the different use patterns 
between public and private use lifts. Public use lifts are more heavily 
used and must accommodate many different types of mobility aids while 
private use lifts are used less frequently and are usually purchased 
for a specific individual and mobility aid. The lower load capacity for 
private use lifts gives manufacturers the flexibility to produce lifts 
for individuals with smaller vehicles or smaller load requirements. 
When an individual purchases or is prescribed a new vehicle equipped 
with a platform lift, the user must rely on present and anticipated 
needs in order to obtain a lift that best suits that individual. 
Further, S6.7.8.4 of FMVSS No. 403 requires that a lift's rated load 
must appear near the lift controls in addition to the statement ``DOT--
Private Use Lift.'' This information must also appear in the vehicle 
owner's manual insert.
    The load rating requirements established under the final rule 
provide more flexibility to lift manufacturers and more options to 
private lift users. At the same time, the standard ensures that users 
are aware of the load limitations of each lift. Therefore, the agency 
is maintaining a minimum 400-pound load capacity requirement for 
private use lifts. However, the 400-pound minimum load capacity does 
not prevent an individual from installing a lift with a higher load 
capacity. An individual could even install a lift certified to the 
public lift requirements.

L. Threshold Warning Signal

    Under the final rule, private use lifts are required to have either 
an audible or visual threshold warning, while public use lifts are 
required to have both an audible and visual threshold warning. A 
threshold warning signal warns a lift user exiting a vehicle that the 
lift platform is more than one inch below the vehicle's floor reference 
plane and the platform threshold area is occupied by a portion of the 
lift user's body or mobility aid. The warning is to prevent users from 
exiting a vehicle when the platform is not in position.
    Prevost petitioned the agency to eliminate the requirement for 
public use lifts to be equipped with both audio and visual threshold 
alarms. It indicated that trained drivers are always present while a 
lift is in operation and maintained that there are no dangers that 
justify a warning signal. Prevost argued that on their vehicles, the 
lift control panel is located just beside the lift and as soon as the 
lift user is inside the coach, the driver lowers the platform and shuts 
the door. It stated that because of this procedure, there is no danger 
that would warrant the need for threshold alarms.
    Agency response: The basic threshold warning requirement in FMVSS 
No. 403 was derived from the SAE lift standard.\7\ In private use 
applications, the specific lift user and his or her mobility aid are 
known quantities and the lift is usually purchased for that person's 
particular needs. In public use applications, lift users and their 
mobility aids are unknown quantities. The lift system is used by a wide 
variety of persons with various disabilities, impairments and mobility 
aids. Thus, the requirement of both visual and audible threshold 
warnings signals on public use vehicles equipped with lifts, is 
intended to provide a threshold warning system that will benefit the 
majority of public lift users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J2093, issued May 
1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in the preamble of the final rule, NHTSA does not have 
the authority to regulate drivers or driver training. We can only 
regulate vehicles and vehicle equipment. Requirements and performance 
tests are written to further safety whether there is a trained driver/
assistant present or not. In the public use environment, when lift 
users are positioned on the vehicle threshold area and are preparing to 
move onto the lift platform, it is important that they be warned when 
the platform is more than one inch below the vehicle floor level. 
Considering the wide variety of persons with various disabilities that 
a public use lift must accommodate and the height of the vehicle 
threshold above the ground, particularly on motor coaches, it is 
reasonable to require both audible and visual threshold-warning alarms. 
Therefore, the agency is denying Prevost's petition with regard to this 
issue.

M. Wheelchair Restraint Standards

    In its petition for reconsideration of the Final Rule, Prevost also 
expressed concern with the lack of wheelchair restraint requirements in 
FMVSS No. 404 to address wheelchair securement once a wheelchair is 
inside a vehicle.
    Agency response: The ADA and DOT regulations regarding securement 
of a mobility device remain in effect and are not altered by FMVSS Nos. 
403 and 404. The ATBCB published guidelines for DOT to follow in 
implementing the ADA and stated, ``NHTSA was the appropriate agency to 
define safety tests for platform lifts.'' (Emphasis added). The DOT 
regulations contain requirements for platform lifts, as well as, 
securement devices for wheelchairs and other mobility aids (49 CFR, 
Part 38, Subpart B). FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 apply only to platform 
lifts designed to carry persons aided by canes or walkers, as well as, 
persons seated in wheelchairs, scooters and other mobility devices into 
and out of motor vehicles. Relative to mobility aid securement devices, 
the ADA requirements are applicable and require at least two mobility 
aid securement locations on vehicles in excess of 22 feet in length and 
at least one mobility aid securement location on vehicles less than or 
equal to 22 feet in length. In addition, the ADA provides requirements 
for mobility aid securement devices relative to design load, location/
size, types of mobility aids accommodated, orientation, movement, 
stowage, and seat belts/shoulder harnesses. Aside from FMVSS No. 222, 
School bus passenger seating and crash protection, which provides 
performance tests for mobility aid securement devices in school buses, 
there are no other NHTSA mobility aid securement device requirements 
for other vehicles.

N. Cost of Testing

    Several petitioners raised concern over the cost of various testing 
requirements and the cost of the platform lift regulations over all. 
Prevost stated that the time, cost and space necessary to perform the 
fatigue endurance testing required by S7.10 of FMVSS No. 403 would be 
excessive. Prevost indicated that a simple static test with a high 
enough safety factor could replace the endurance testing, while still 
assuring the robustness of the lift/vehicle attachment point. Further, 
Prevost expressed confusion as to whether it was the lift manufacturer 
or the vehicle manufacturer that is responsible for certifying to 
endurance requirements.
    Stewart & Stevenson stated that permitting the fatigue endurance 
testing and the proof load testing (S7.11 of FMVSS No. 403) to be 
performed on a jig, as opposed to testing on a vehicle, would reduce 
the compliance costs. Stewart & Stevenson estimated that the cost of 
fatigue testing a platform lift on

[[Page 58850]]

an over-the-road coach would cost $450,000 per test as compared to a 
cost of $35,000 per test using a jig. As such, Stewart & Stevenson 
requested that the standard be amended to clarify that certification 
testing can be performed through use of a jig, as opposed to testing 
performed on a vehicle.
    Generally, the Braun Corporation disagreed with the agency's cost 
estimate of $300 per lift to comply with FMVSS No. 403 and 404. The 
Braun Corporation estimated that the cost for complying with the 
electrical portions of the standard would alone be $300 and that 
compliance with the mechanical aspects would be an additional $300. The 
Braun Corporation argued that this increase would translate to a retail 
cost of four to six times higher than that estimated by NHTSA and was 
concerned that higher consumer costs would reduce the options available 
to the end users.
    Agency response: The agency maintains that the compliance costs 
estimated in the Final Rule are an accurate estimate, given the 
incorporation of industry and ADA guidelines into the standards, given 
that most commercial lifts already comply with the industry standards, 
and given that manufacturers must already comply with the ADA 
guidelines for public use lifts.
    For clarification, FMVSS No. 403 is an equipment standard. All of 
the requirements contained therein apply to platform lifts and platform 
lift manufacturers. FMVSS No. 404 is a vehicle standard. All of the 
requirements therein apply to manufacturers of vehicles equipped with 
platform lifts. The lift manufacturer must certify that a lift complies 
with the fatigue endurance requirements specified in S6.5.1 of FMVSS 
No. 403 on all vehicles for which the lift is intended.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Under S6.13.1 of FMVSS No. 403 a list of suitable vehicles 
must appear in the installation instructions. Vehicles may be 
identified by listing the make, model and year of the vehicles for 
which the lift is suitable, or by specifying the design elements 
that would make a vehicle an appropriate host for the particular 
lift.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fatigue requirements in S6.5.1 and the related performance test 
in S7.10 not only verify the integrity of the lift, but also verify the 
integrity of the lift's attachment to the vehicle. Although lift 
attachment points usually do not move, some flexion may occur as the 
lift is cycled, which may eventually result in fracture and/or 
separation. Fatigue or life cycle testing is generally the best way to 
reveal such problems.
    However, the self-certification process established by the National 
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act permits manufacturers to certify 
compliance with requirements in ways other than performing actual tests 
on all lift/vehicle combinations. Each FMVSS specifies performance 
requirements for the vehicle or equipment to which the standard 
applies. While manufacturers are not required to conduct certification 
tests in any particular manner, any manufacturer that wishes to base 
its certification of compliance on a test procedure that is different 
from that included in the standard must necessarily assess whether the 
results of the alternative test procedure are good predictors of the 
results of the test procedure specified in the standard.
    Additionally, no lift manufacturers provided data that would 
demonstrate costs to manufacturers greater than those determined by the 
agency in the final rule. The agency expects the costs to decrease with 
regards to the electrical interlock requirements given that an 
amendment in this notice permits lift manufacturers to rely on 
interlock components already in companion vehicles. This will reduce 
the design and material costs for these systems.

III. Corrections

    This document corrects several errors in the Final Rule. Lift-U 
noted that the final rule erroneously listed the threshold warning test 
in S7.4 of FMVSS No. 403 as a test that can be performed on a test jig 
when in fact, the procedure in S7.4 is performed on a lift/vehicle 
combination. Therefore, the regulatory text has been appropriately 
amended.
    Further, the wheelchair retention device impact test, S7.7.1, to 
which the edge guard test was added, may be performed on a jig. The 
added edge guard test adopted by this document, S7.7.4, specifies 
testing on a lift/vehicle combination. The regulatory language has been 
amended in S7 to reflect these additions.
    Lift-U also brought to our attention an error in S6.2.1 of FMVSS 
No. 403. The first sentence of S6.2.1 states, ``Throughout the range of 
passenger operation and during the lift operations specified in S7.6, 
the platform lift must meet the requirements of S6.2.2 through 
S6.2.4.'' S7.6 is the test for occupancy of the inner-roll stop and 
interlock function. S6.2.1 was intended to reference operations in 
S7.9, Static load test I--working load. S6.2.1 is amended accordingly. 
Additionally, S7.1.1 is amended to properly reference the appropriate 
load test provisions.
    S7.9 is referenced throughout FMVSS No. 403. The interlock 
requirements in S6.10.2.3 references the operations in S7.9.7 and 
S7.9.8 as a test procedure. S6.10.2.3 requires that a platform not stow 
when the test block specified in S7.1.4 is placed with its narrow side 
down on any portion of the useable surface of the platform. However, 
the procedure in S7.9.7 that is referenced requires centering the load 
on the platform. The procedures in S6.10.2.3 and S7.9.7 are 
conflicting. To eliminate confusion, the references to S7.9.7 and 
S7.9.8 are removed from S6.10.2.3. S6.10.2.3 continues to reference the 
test device in S7.1.4, but the platform positioning procedures have 
been placed directly in S6.10.2.3, instead of relying on cross-
referenced procedures.
    Additionally, this document corrects several other minor errors. 
S6.2.4, Maximum noise level of public use lifts, erroneously refers to 
S6.4.2.2, which describes the operating volume for private use lifts. 
S7.7.2.2 is intended to set the lowest point of the footrests to a 
height of 50 mm, not 501 mm. S7.14.1 is intended to reference S7.14.2 
through S14.4.4. Each of these sections has been amended accordingly. 
S6.4.9.3, S6.4.9.9, S7.7.4.1, and S7.13.2 are amended to provide 
consistency in the conversion of measurements to metric through out the 
standard.

IV. Effective Date

    The amendments made in this rule are effective December 27, 2004, 
the same date the FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 become effective. The final 
rule, which was published December 27, 2002, provided a two-year lead 
time in order to allow manufacturers sufficient time to comply with the 
requirements of FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404. The amendments made to FMVSS 
Nos. 403 and 404 in this document provide manufacturers more 
flexibility in complying with these standards. As such, manufacturers 
should be able to comply with the amended standard at the same time 
they are required to comply with FMVSS No. 403 and 404.

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' 
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or

[[Page 58851]]

adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    This rulemaking document was not reviewed under Executive Order 
12866. It is not significant within the meaning of the DOT Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures. The December 2002 final rule was classified as 
significant because of the public policy consideration involved, as 
opposed to the economic implications. This document does not affect the 
public policy implications of the final rule. This document clarifies 
the application of FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 as well as provides further 
flexibility in compliance.
    The agency has concluded that the impacts of today's amendments are 
so minimal that a full regulatory evaluation is not required. Readers 
who are interested in the overall costs and benefits of the platform 
lift requirements are referred to the agency's Final Economic 
Assessment for the December 2002 final rule (Docket No. NHTSA-2002-
13917-3). NHTSA has determined that today's rule does not change the 
costs and benefits estimated in the Final Economic Assessment.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We have considered the effects of this rulemaking action under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) This action will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
businesses because it does not significantly change the costs of the 
December 2002 final rule. This action clarifies the requirements and 
test procedures of FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404, in part, through removing 
requirements not appropriate for certain platform lift designs. 
Additionally, this action provides additional flexibility for 
manufacturers by allowing lift manufacturers to rely on existing 
vehicle components to comply with the interlock requirements and 
through the adoption of a compliance alternative to the edge guard 
requirement.

C. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed these amendments for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act and determined that they will not 
have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    The agency has analyzed this rulemaking in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 and has 
determined that it does not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation 
of a federalism summary impact statement. The final rule has no 
substantial effects on the States, or on the current Federal-State 
relationship, or on the current distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various local officials.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to 
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects 
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to 
result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually 
(adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This action will not 
increase the cost of compliance with FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 as adopted 
in the December 2002 Final Rule.

F. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This final rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under section 
49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in 
effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable 
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal 
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a 
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for 
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial 
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a 
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before 
parties may file suit in court.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless 
the collection displays a valid OMB control number. The information 
disclosure requirements of FMVSS No. 403 and FMVSS No. 404 were granted 
OMB clearance; OMB No. 2127-0621. The amendments made to those 
standards do not result in any new information or information 
disclosure requirements.

H. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center 
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may 
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document 
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

I. Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in 
plain language. Today's rule has been written with that directive in 
mind. We note that many of the requirements of today's rule are 
technical in nature. As such, they may require some understanding of 
technical terminology. We expect those parties directly affected by 
today's rule, i.e., platform lift manufacturers and vehicle 
manufacturers to be familiar with such terminology.

J. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined 
to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) 
concerns an environmental, health or safety risk that NHTSA has reason 
to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the 
regulatory action meets both criteria, we must evaluate the 
environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, 
and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other 
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered 
by us.
    This rulemaking does not directly involve health risks that 
disproportionately affect children.

K. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary 
consensus standards \9\ in its regulatory

[[Page 58852]]

activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law 
(e.g., the statutory provisions regarding NHTSA's vehicle safety 
authority) or otherwise impractical. In meeting that requirement, we 
are required to consult with voluntary, private sector, consensus 
standards bodies. Examples of organizations generally regarded as 
voluntary consensus standards bodies include the American Society for 
Testing and Materials (ASTM), the Society of Automotive Engineers 
(SAE), and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). If NHTSA 
does not use available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus 
standards, we are required by the Act to provide Congress, through OMB, 
an explanation of the reasons for not using such standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. 
Technical standards are defined by the NTTAA as ``performance-based 
or design-specific technical specifications and related management 
systems practices.'' They pertain to ``products and processes, such 
as size, strength, or technical performance of a product, process or 
material.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This document adds a performance based compliance option for edge 
guards. The agency searched for, but did not find any voluntary or 
industry standards to incorporate for this requirement.

L. Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all submissions 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment or petition (or signing the comment or petition, 
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). 
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 
19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Tires.


0
In consideration of the foregoing, the final rules for 49 CFR part 571, 
published at 67 FR 79416 (December 27, 2002), effective beginning 
December 27, 2004, are amended as follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 571 of Title 49 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.


0
2. Section 571.403 is amended as follows:
0
A. By revising S3, the definitions of ``deploy'' and ``stow'' in S4, 
S6.2.1, S6.2.2.2, S6.2.4, S6.3.1, S6.3.2, S6.4.5, S6.4.6.1, S6.4.9.3, 
S6.4.9.9, S6.4.11, S6.5.1.1, S6.5.1.2, S6.7 through S6.7.2.2, S6.7.4, 
S6.7.5, S6.7.7, S6.10.2, S6.10.2.3, S7, S7.1.1, S7.1.2, S7.1.2.5, 
S7.1.2.6, S7.3.3, S7.7, S7.7.2.2, S7.10.5, S7.10.6, S7.13.2 and 
S7.14.1;
0
B. By adding S6.13.4.1, S7.1.2.11, S7.7.4 through S7.7.4.6; and
0
C. By removing S6.4.12.
    The revisions and additions to Sec.  571.403 read as follows:


Sec.  571.403  Standard No. 403; Platform lift systems for motor 
vehicles.

* * * * *
    S3. Application. This standard applies to platform lifts designed 
to carry standing passengers, who may be aided by canes or walkers, as 
well as, persons seated in wheelchairs, scooters and other mobility 
aids, into and out of motor vehicles.
    S4. Definitions.
* * * * *
    Deploy means with respect to a platform, its movement from a stowed 
position to an extended position or, one of the two loading positions. 
With respect to a wheelchair retention device or inner roll stop, the 
term means the movement of the device or stop to a fully functional 
position intended to prevent a passenger from disembarking the platform 
or being pinched between the platform and vehicle.
* * * * *
    Stow means with respect to a platform, its movement from a position 
within the range of passenger operation to the position maintained 
during normal vehicle travel; and, with respect to a wheelchair 
retention device, bridging device, or inner-roll stop, its movement 
from a fully functional position to a position maintained during normal 
vehicle travel.
* * * * *
    S6.2.1 General. Throughout the range of passenger operation and 
during the lift operations specified in S7.9.3 through S7.9.8, the 
platform lift must meet the requirements of S6.2.2 through S6.2.4. 
These requirements must be satisfied both with and without a standard 
load on the lift platform, except for S6.2.2.2, which must be satisfied 
without any load.
* * * * *
    S6.2.2.2 Except for platform lifts that manually stow (fold) and 
deploy (unfold), during the stow and deploy operations specified in 
S7.9.3 through S7.9.8, both the vertical and horizontal velocity of any 
portion of the platform must be less than or equal to 305 mm (12 
inches) per second.
* * * * *
    S6.2.4 Maximum noise level of public use lifts. Except as provided 
in S6.1.5, throughout the range of passenger operation specified in 
S7.9.4 through S7.9.7, the noise level of a public use lift may not 
exceed 80 dBa as measured at any lift operator's position designated by 
the platform lift manufacturer for the intended vehicle and in the area 
on the lift defined in S6.4.2.1. Lift operator position measurements 
are taken at the vertical centerline of the control panel 30.5 cm (12 
in) out from the face of the control panel. In the case of a lift with 
a pendant control (i.e., a control tethered to the vehicle by 
connective wiring), measurement is taken at the vertical centerline of 
the control panel 30.5 cm (12 in) out from the face of the control 
panel while the control panel is in its stowed or stored position. For 
the lift operator positions outside of the vehicle, measurements are 
taken at the intersection of a horizontal plane 157 cm (62 in) above 
the ground and the vertical centerline of the face of the control panel 
after it has been extended 30.5 cm (12 in) out from the face of the 
control panel.
* * * * *
    S6.3.1 Internally mounted platform lifts. On platform lifts and 
their components internal to the occupant compartment of the vehicle or 
internal to other compartments that provide protection from the 
elements when stowed, attachment hardware must be free of ferrous 
corrosion on significant surfaces except for permissible ferrous 
corrosion, as defined in FMVSS No. 209, at peripheral surface edges or 
edges of holes on under-floor reinforcing plates and washers after 
being subjected to the conditions specified in S7.3. Alternatively, 
such hardware must be made from corrosion-resistant steel containing at 
least 11.5 percent chromium per FMVSS 571.209, S5.2(a) or must be 
protected against corrosion by an electrodeposited coating of nickel, 
or copper and nickel with at least a service condition number of SC2, 
and other attachment hardware must be protected by an electrodeposited 
coating of nickel, or copper and nickel with a service condition number 
of SC1, in accordance with ASTM B456-95, but such hardware may not be 
racked for electroplating in locations subjected to maximum stress. The 
manufacturer shall select the option by the time it certifies the lift 
and may not thereafter select a different option for the lift. The lift 
must be accompanied by all attachment hardware necessary for its 
installation on a vehicle.

[[Page 58853]]

    S6.3.2 Externally mounted platform lifts. On platform lifts and 
their components external to the occupant compartment of the vehicle 
and external to other compartments that provide protection from the 
elements when stowed, the lift and its components must be free of 
ferrous corrosion on significant surfaces except for permissible 
ferrous corrosion, as defined in FMVSS No. 209, at peripheral surface 
edges and edges of holes and continue to function properly after being 
subjected to the conditions specified in S7.3. Alternatively, such 
lifts and all associated hardware and components must be completely 
made from corrosion-resistant steel containing at least 11.5 percent 
chromium per FMVSS 571.209, S5.2(a). The manufacturer shall select the 
option by the time it certifies the lift and may not thereafter select 
a different option for the lift. The lift must be accompanied by all 
attachment hardware necessary for its installation on a vehicle.
* * * * *
    S6.4.5 Platform deflection. The angle of the deployed platform, 
when stationary, and loaded with a standard load, must not exceed 4.8 
degrees with respect to the vehicle floor and must not exceed 3 degrees 
with respect to the platform's unloaded position. The angles are 
measured between a vertical axis from the vehicle floor and an axis 
normal to the platform center as shown in Figure 1.
* * * * *
    S6.4.6.1 The platform lift must have edge guards that extend 
continuously along each side of the lift platform to within 75 mm (3 
inches) of the edges of the platform that are traversed while entering 
and exiting the platform at both the ground and vehicle floor level 
loading positions. The edge guards must be parallel to the direction of 
wheelchair movement during loading and unloading. Alternatively, when 
tested in accordance with S7.7.4, all portions of the wheels of the 
wheelchair test device must remain above the platform surface and after 
the control is released to Neutral, at the end of each attempt to steer 
the test device off the platform, all wheels of the wheelchair test 
device must be in contact with the platform surface. The manufacturer 
shall select the option by the time it certifies the lift and may not 
thereafter select a different option for the lift.
* * * * *
    S6.4.9.3 The graspable portion of each handrail may not be less 
than 760 mm (30 inches) and more than 965 mm (38 inches) above the 
platform surface, measured vertically.
* * * * *
    S6.4.9.9 When tested in accordance with S7.12.2, each handrail must 
withstand 1,112 N (250 lb/f) applied at any point and in any direction 
on the handrail without sustaining any failure, such as cracking, 
separation, fracture, or more than 100 mm (4 inches) of displacement of 
any point on the handrails relative to the platform surface.
* * * * *
    S6.4.11 Platform slip resistance. When tested in accordance with 
S7.2, the coefficient of friction, in any direction, of any part of a 
wet platform surface may not be less than 0.65.
* * * * *
    S6.5.1.1 Public use lifts. Except for lifts that manually stow 
(fold) and deploy (unfold), public use lifts must remain operable when 
operated through a total of 15,600 cycles: 7,800 unloaded Raise/Lower 
and Stow/Deploy operations and 7,800 loaded Raise/Lower operations as 
specified in S7.10. Public use lifts that manually stow (fold) and 
deploy (unfold) must remain operable when operated through a total of 
15,600 cycles: 7,800 unloaded Raise/Lower operations and 7,800 loaded 
Raise/Lower operations. No separation, fracture, or breakage of any 
vehicle or lift component may occur as a result of conducting the 
fatigue test in S7.10.
    S6.5.1.2 Private use lifts. Except for lifts that manually stow 
(fold) and deploy (unfold), private use lifts must remain operable when 
operated through a total of 4,400 cycles: 2,200 unloaded Raise/Lower 
and Stow/Deploy operations and 2,200 loaded Raise/Lower operations as 
specified in S7.10. Private use lifts that manually stow (fold) and 
deploy (unfold) must remain operable when operated through a total of 
4,400 cycles: 2,200 unloaded Raise/Lower operations and 2,200 loaded 
Raise/Lower operations. No separation, fracture, or breakage of any 
vehicle or lift component may occur as a result of conducting the 
fatigue test in S7.10.
* * * * *
    S6.7 Control panel switches.
    S6.7.1 The platform lift must meet the requirements of S6.7.2 
through S6.7.8 and, when operated by means of the control panel 
switches specified in S6.7.2, must perform the lift operations 
specified in S7.9.
    S6.7.2 The platform lift system must have control panel switches 
that perform not less than the following functions: (platform lifts 
that manually stow (fold) and deploy (unfold) are exempt from S6.7.2.2 
and S6.7.2.5).
    S6.7.2.1 Enables and disables the lift control panel switches. This 
function must be identified as ``POWER'' if located on the control. The 
POWER function must have two states: ``ON'' and ``OFF''. The ``ON'' 
state must allow platform lift operation. When the POWER function is in 
the ``ON'' state, an indicator light on the controls must illuminate. 
The ``OFF'' state must prevent lift operation and must turn off the 
indicator light. Verification with this requirement is made throughout 
the lift operations specified in S7.9.3 through S7.9.8.
    S6.7.2.2 Moves the lift from a stowed position to an extended 
position or, to one of the two loading positions. This function must be 
identified as ``DEPLOY'' or ``UNFOLD'' on the control.
* * * * *
    S6.7.4 Except for the POWER function described in S6.7.2.1, the 
control panel switches specified in S6.7.2 must prevent the 
simultaneous performance of more than one function. Verification with 
this requirement is made throughout the lift operations specified in 
S7.9.3 through S7.9.8.
    S6.7.5 Any single-point failure in the control panel switches may 
not prevent the operation of any of the interlocks as specified in 
S6.10.
* * * * *
    S6.7.7 Control location for public use lifts: In public use lifts, 
except for the backup operation specified in S6.9, all control panel 
switches must be positioned together and in a location such that the 
lift operator has a direct, unobstructed view of the platform lift 
passenger and the passenger's mobility aid, if applicable. Verification 
with this requirement is made throughout the lift operations specified 
in S7.9.3 through S7.9.8. Additional controls may be positioned in 
other locations.
* * * * *
    S6.10.2 The platform lift system must have interlocks or operate in 
such a manner when installed according to the installation 
instructions, as to prevent:
* * * * *
    S6.10.2.3 Stowing of the platform lift when occupied by portions of 
a passenger's body, and/or a mobility aid. Platform lifts designed to 
be occupied while stowed and platform lifts that manually stow (fold) 
are excluded from this requirement. Verification with this requirement 
is made using the test device specified in S7.1.4. Move the deployed 
platform lift to a position within the range of passenger operation 
where it will stow if the control specified in S6.7.2.5 is actuated. 
Place

[[Page 58854]]

the test device specified in S7.1.4 on its narrowest side on any 
portion of the platform surface that coincides with the unobstructed 
platform operating volume described in S6.4.2. Using the operator 
control specified in S7.7.2.5, attempt to stow the lift. The interlock 
must prevent the lift from stowing.
* * * * *
    S6.13.4.1 Installation instructions for public use lifts must 
contain the statement ``Public use vehicle manufacturers are 
responsible for complying with the lift lighting requirements in 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 404, Platform Lift 
Installations in Motor Vehicles (49 CFR 571.404).''
* * * * *
    S7. Test conditions and procedures. Each platform lift must be 
capable of meeting all of the tests specified in this standard, both 
separately, and in the sequence specified in this section. The tests 
specified in S7.4, S7.7.4 and S7.8 through S7.11 are performed on a 
single lift and vehicle combination. The tests specified in S7.2, S7.3, 
S7.5, S7.6, S7.7.1 and S7.12 through S7.14 may be performed with the 
lift installed on a test jig rather than on a vehicle. Tests of 
requirements in S6.1 through S6.11 may be performed on a single lift 
and vehicle combination, except for the requirements of S6.5.3. 
Attachment hardware may be replaced if damaged by removal and 
reinstallation of the lift between a test jig and vehicle.
* * * * *
    S7.1.1 Test pallet and load. The surface of the test pallet that 
rests on the platform used for the tests specified in S7.9 through 
S7.11 and S7.14 has sides that measure between 660 mm (26 in) and 686 
mm (27 in). For the tests specified in S7.9 and S7.10, the test pallet 
is made of a rectangular steel plate of uniform thickness and the load 
that rests on the test pallet is made of rectangular steel plate(s) of 
uniform thickness and sides that measure between 533 mm (21 in) and 686 
mm (27 in). The standard test load that rests on the pallet is defined 
in S4.
    S7.1.2 Wheelchair test device. The test device is an unloaded power 
wheelchair whose size is appropriate for a 95th percentile male and 
that has the dimensions, configuration and components described in 
S7.1.2.1 through S7.1.2.11. If the dimension in S7.1.2.9 is measured 
for a particular wheelchair by determining its tipping angle, the 
batteries are prevented from moving from their original position.
* * * * *
    S7.1.2.5 Two pneumatic rear tires with a diameter not less than 495 
mm (19.5 in) and not more than 521 mm (20.5 in) inflated to the 
wheelchair manufacturer's recommended pressure or if no recommendation 
exists, to the maximum pressure that appears on the sidewall of the 
tire;
    S7.1.2.6 Two pneumatic front tires with a diameter not less than 
190 mm (7.5 in) and not more than 216 mm (8.5 in) inflated to the 
wheelchair manufacturer's recommended pressure or if no recommendation 
exists, to the maximum pressure that appears on the sidewall of the 
tire;
* * * * *
    S7.1.2.11 Batteries with a charge not less than 75 percent of their 
rated nominal capacity (for tests that require use of the wheelchair's 
propulsion system).
* * * * *
    S7.3.3 For attachment hardware located within the occupant 
compartment of the motor vehicle or internal to other compartments that 
provide protection from the elements and not at or near the floor of 
the compartment, the period of the test is 25 hours, consisting of one 
period of 24 hours exposure to salt spray followed by one hour drying.
* * * * *
    S7.7 Wheelchair retention device impact test and edge guard test.
* * * * *
    S7.7.2.2 If the wheelchair retention device is an outer barrier, 
the footrests are adjusted such that at their lowest point they have a 
height 25 mm <plus-minus> 2 mm (1 in <plus-minus> 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 <plus-minus> 2 mm (2 in <plus-minus> 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 <plus-minus> 10 mm 
(3.5 in <plus-minus> 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 
<plus-minus> 10 mm (<plus-minus> 0.4 in), its forward direction of 
travel inboard toward the vehicle, and its position on the platform as 
far rearward as the wheelchair retention device or outer barrier will 
allow it to be placed.
    S7.7.4.3 Adjust the control of the test device to a setting that 
provides maximum acceleration and steer the test device from side-to-
side and corner-to-corner of the lift platform, attempting to steer the 
test device off the platform. After each attempt, when the wheelchair 
test device stalls due to contact with a barrier, release the control 
to Neutral and realign the test device to the starting position. Repeat 
this sequence at any level that is greater than 90 mm <plus-minus> 10 
mm (3.5 in <plus-minus> 0.4 in) above the ground level loading position 
and less than 38 mm <plus-minus> 10 mm (1.5 in <plus-minus> 0.4 in) 
below the vehicle floor level loading position. Repeat this sequence at 
38 mm <plus-minus> 10 mm (1.5 in <plus-minus> 0.4 in) below the vehicle 
floor level loading position.
    S7.7.4.4 Next position the platform surface 38 mm <plus-minus> 10 
mm (1.5 in <plus-minus> 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 
<plus-minus> 10 mm (<plus-minus> 0.4 in), its forward direction of 
travel outboard away from the vehicle, and its position on the platform 
as far rearward as the wheelchair inner roll-stop or vehicle body will 
allow it to be placed.
    S7.7.4.6 Adjust the control of the test device to a setting that 
provides maximum acceleration and steer the test device from side-to-
side and corner-to-corner of the lift platform, attempting to steer the 
test device off the platform. After each attempt, when the wheelchair 
test device stalls due to contact with a barrier, release the control 
to Neutral and realign the test device to the starting position. Repeat 
this sequence at any level that is greater than 90 mm <plus-minus> 10 
mm (3.5 in <plus-minus> 0.4 in) above the ground level loading position 
and less than 38 mm <plus-minus> 10 mm (1.5 in <plus-minus> 0.4 in) 
below the vehicle floor level loading position. Repeat this sequence at 
38 mm <plus-minus> 10 mm (1.5 in <plus-minus> 0.4 in) below the vehicle 
floor level loading position.
* * * * *
    S7.10.5 Public use lifts: Using the lift controls specified in 
S6.7.2, perform the operations specified in S7.10.5.1 through S7.10.5.3 
in the order they are given. Public use lifts that manually stow (fold) 
and deploy (unfold) are not required to perform the stow and deploy 
portions of the tests.
* * * * *
    S7.10.6 Private use lifts: Using the lift controls specified in 
S6.7.2, perform the operation specified in S7.10.6.1 through S7.10.6.3 
in the order they are given. Private use lifts that manually stow 
(fold) and deploy (unfold) are not

[[Page 58855]]

required to perform the stow and deploy portions of the tests.
* * * * *
    S7.13.2 Position the platform surface 90 mm <plus-minus> 10 mm (3.5 
in <plus-minus> 0.4 in) above the ground level loading position. Apply 
7,117 N (1,600 lbf) to the wheelchair retention device in a direction 
parallel to both the platform lift and platform reference planes. 
Attain the force within 1 minute after beginning to apply it.
* * * * *
    S7.14.1 Perform the test procedures as specified in S7.14.2 through 
S7.14.4 to determine compliance with S6.5.3.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  571.404 by revising S3 and S4.3 and adding S4.1.5 to 
read as follows:


Sec.  571.404  Standard No. 404; Platform lift installations in motor 
vehicles.

* * * * *
    S3. Application. This standard applies to motor vehicles equipped 
with a platform lift designed to carry standing passengers who may be 
aided by canes or walkers, as well as, persons seated in wheelchairs, 
scooters and other mobility aids, into and out of the vehicle.
* * * * *
    S4.1.5 Platform lighting on public use lifts. Public use lifts must 
have a light or a set of lights that provide at least 54 lm/
m<SUP>2</SUP> (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/m<SUP>2</SUP> (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