20558 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

V. Termination of Second Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

20. As noted above, the Commission 

issued a Second FNPRM in 2007. We 

find that all of the proposals made in 

the Second FNPRM are either 

inconsistent with or otherwise mooted 

by the LCRA. Specifically, the 

Commission proposed to codify the 

interim processing policy for secondadjacent channel waiver requests that it 

adopted in the Third Report and Order. 

However, in the Fourth FNPRM, we 

conclude that the second-adjacent 

channel waiver provisions of the LCRA 

supersede this interim policy. 

Accordingly, we find the Commission’s 

proposal to codify the interim policy to 

be moot and will not pursue it further. 

Similarly, we find the Commission’s 

proposal to adopt a contour overlap 

interference protection approach to be 

statutorily barred by section 3(b)(1) of 

the LCRA, which prohibits the 

Commission from modifying the current 

co-channel and first- and secondadjacent channel distance separation 

requirements. We will not pursue this 

proposal either. Finally, the 

Commission proposed certain rule 

changes related to LPFM station 

displacement, the obligations of fullservice new station and modification 

applicants to potentially impacted 

LPFM stations, and LPFM–FM 

translator protection priorities. We 

believe that Congress’s adoption of the 

LCRA renders pursuit of those earlier 

proposals unnecessary at this time. 

Thus, we will not move forward with 

any of them. Given our findings 

regarding each of the proposals set forth 

by the Commission in the Second 

FNPRM, we consider the Second 

FNPRM to have been concluded. 

VI. Adminstrative Matters 

A. Congressional Review Act 

21. The Commission will send a copy 

of this Fifth Report and Order to 

Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A). 

VII. Ordering Clauses 

22. Accordingly, It is ordered, 

pursuant to the authority contained in 

the Local Community Radio Act of 

2010, Public Law 111–371, 124 Stat. 

4072 (2011), and sections 1, 2, 4(i), 303, 

307, and 309(j) of the Communications 

Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 

303, 307, and 309(j), that this Fifth 

Report and Order, Fourth Further Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking and Fourth 

Order on Reconsideration is adopted. 

23. It is further ordered that pursuant 

to the authority contained in the Local 

Community Radio Act of 2010, Public 

Law 111–371, 124 Stat. 4072 (2011), and 

sections 1, 2, 4(i), 303, and 307 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 

151, 152, 154(i), 303, and 307, the 

Commission’s rules are hereby 

amended. It is our intention in adopting 

these rule changes that, if any provision 

of the rules is held invalid by any court 

of competent jurisdiction, the remaining 

provisions shall remain in effect to the 

fullest extent permitted by law. 

24. It is further ordered that the rules 

shall be effective June 4, 2012. 

25. It is further ordered that the 

Petition for Rulemaking filed by REC 

Networks on July 16, 2004, is hereby 

dismissed, and Proceeding No. PRM– 

04–MB is terminated. 

26. It is further ordered that the 

Petition for Reconsideration filed by 

Ace Radio Corp. on February 19, 2008, 

is denied in part. 

27. It is further ordered that the 

Second Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking in MM Docket No. 99–25 is 

terminated. 

28. It is further ordered that the 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau, Reference Information Center, 

shall send a copy of this Fifth Report 

and Order, Fourth Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking and Fourth Order 

on Reconsideration, including the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration, and shall 

cause it to be published in the Federal 

Register. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Radio. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 to 

read as follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, 

and 339. 

■ 2. Section 73.807 is amended by 

revising the introductory text to read as 

follows: 

§ 73.807 Minimum distance separation 

between stations. 

Minimum separation requirements for 

LP100 and LP10 stations, as defined in 

§§ 73.811 and 73.853, are listed in the 

following paragraphs. An LPFM station 

will not be authorized unless the cochannel, first- and second-adjacent and 

IF channel separations are met. An 

LPFM station need not satisfy the thirdadjacent channel separations listed in 

paragraphs (a) through (d) in order to be 

authorized. Minimum distances for cochannel and first-adjacent channel are 

separated into two columns. The lefthand column lists the required 

minimum separation to protect other 

stations and the right-hand column lists 

(for informational purposes only) the 

minimum distance necessary for the 

LPFM station to receive no interference 

from other stations assumed to be 

operating at the maximum permitted 

facilities for the station class. For 

second-adjacent channel and I.F. 

channels, the required minimum 

distance separation is sufficient to avoid 

interference received from other 

stations. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–8129 Filed 4–4–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2012–0039] 

RIN 2127–AJ93 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Platform Lifts for Motor 

Vehicles; Platform Lift Installations in 

Motor Vehicles 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document adopts 

amendments to the Federal motor 

vehicle safety standards on platform lift 

systems for motor vehicles. The purpose 

of these standards is to prevent injuries 

and fatalities during lift operation. 

NHTSA believes it is necessary to revise 

the lighting requirements for lift 

controls; the location requirements, 

performance requirements, and test 

specifications for threshold warning 

signals; the wheelchair retention device 

and inner roll stop tests; and the 

lighting requirements for public use 

lifts. This notice also discusses a 

November 3, 2005 interpretation 

clarifying specific procedures that are 

performed as part of the threshold 

warning signal test. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20559 

1 67 FR 79416. 

2Public Law 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. 

3 56 FR 45530. 

4 69 FR 58843. 

5 69 FR 76865. 

6 70 FR 40917. 

DATES: Effective date: This final rule is 

effective May 7, 2012. 

Compliance date: Mandatory 

compliance with this final rule is 

required beginning October 2, 2012. 

Optional compliance is permitted 

beginning April 5, 2012. 

Petitions for reconsideration: If you 

wish to petition for reconsideration of 

this rule, your petition must be received 

by May 21, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: If you submit a petition for 

reconsideration of this rule, you should 

refer in your petition to the docket 

number of this document and submit 

your petition to: Administrator, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., West Building, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

The petition will be placed in the 

public docket. Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all documents 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

document (or signing the document, 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). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical issues, you may contact Mike 

Pyne, NVS–123, Office of Rulemaking, 

by telephone at (202) 366–2720, by fax 

at (202) 366–2739, or by email to 

mike.pyne@dot.gov. For legal issues, 

you may contact David Jasinski, Office 

of the Chief Counsel, NCC–112, by 

telephone at (202) 366–2992, by fax at 

(202) 366–3820, or by email to 

david.jasinski@dot.gov. You may send 

mail to both of these officials at National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Summary of the NPRM 

III. Comments and Analysis 

A. Use of Auxiliary Retention Devices for 

Interlock Procedure 

B. Barrier Impact Test 

C. Handrail Test Procedures 

D. Measurement Procedure for Platform 

Illumination 

E. Preemption 

IV. Technical Corrections 

A. Definition of Motor Home 

B. Change to Application Section 

C. Height Range Measurements in Edge 

Guard Test 

D. Test Conditions for Inner Roll Stop Test 

E. Clarification of Wheelchair Retention 

and Inner Roll Stop Requirements 

V. November 3, 2005 Interpretation 

VI. Effective Date 

VII. Rulemaking Analysis and Notices 

I. Background 

On December 27, 2002, the agency 

published in the Federal Register a final 

rule establishing FMVSS No. 403, 

Platform lift systems for motor vehicles, 

and FMVSS No. 404, Platform lift 

installations in motor vehicles.1 We 

established these two standards to 

provide practicable, performance-based 

requirements and compliance 

procedures for the regulations 

promulgated by DOT under the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),2

and to ensure the safety of vehicles 

equipped with those lift systems. 

FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 provide that 

only lift systems that comply with 

objective safety requirements may be 

sold and installed on new motor 

vehicles, and that vehicles with lift 

systems must comply with objective 

safety requirements in order to be sold. 

FMVSS No. 403 establishes 

requirements for platform lifts that are 

designed to carry passengers with 

limited mobility, including those who 

rely on wheelchairs, scooters, canes and 

other mobility aids, so that they can 

move into and out of motor vehicles. 

The standard requires that these lifts 

meet minimum platform dimensions 

and maximum size limits for platform 

protrusions and gaps between the 

platform and either the vehicle floor or 

the ground. The standard also requires 

handrails, a threshold warning signal, 

and retaining barriers and specifies 

performance tests. 

FMVSS No. 404 establishes 

requirements for vehicles that, as 

manufactured, are equipped with 

platform lifts. The lifts installed on 

those vehicles must be certified as 

meeting FMVSS No. 403, must be 

installed according to the lift 

manufacturer’s instructions, and must 

continue to meet all of the applicable 

requirements of FMVSS No. 403 after 

installation. The standard also requires 

that specific information be made 

available to lift users. 

Recognizing that the usage patterns of 

platform lifts used in public transit 

differ from those of platform lifts for 

individual (i.e., private) use, the agency 

established separate requirements for 

public use lifts and private use lifts. 

FMVSS No. 404, S4.1.1 requires that the 

lift on each lift-equipped bus, school 

bus and multipurpose passenger vehicle 

other than a motor home with a gross 

vehicle weight rating (GVWR) more than 

4,536 kg (10,000 lb) must be certified as 

meeting all applicable public use lift 

requirements set forth in FMVSS No. 

403. FMVSS No. 404, S4.1.2 requires the 

lift on each lift-equipped vehicle with a 

GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less to 

be certified to either the public use or 

private use lift requirements set forth in 

FMVSS No. 403. Different requirements 

apply to vehicles with public use lifts 

than to vehicles with private use lifts 

because public use lifts generally are 

subject to more stress and cyclic loading 

and will be used by more numerous and 

varied populations. 

As required by the ADA, FMVSS Nos. 

403 and 404 are consistent with the 

Architectural and Transportation 

Barriers Compliance Board (ATBCB) 

guidelines published on September 6, 

1991.3 In order to provide 

manufacturers sufficient time to meet 

any new requirements established in 

FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404, the agency 

provided a two-year lead-time, which 

scheduled the standards to become 

effective on December 27, 2004. 

On October 1, 2004, in response to 

petitions for reconsideration of its 

December 27, 2002 final rule, the agency 

published a final rule in the Federal 

Register revising FMVSS Nos. 403 and 

404. Among the changes made by the 

October 1, 2004 final rule, the agency 

amended edge guard requirements and 

the wheelchair test device 

specifications.4

On December 23, 2004, the agency 

published an interim final rule in the 

Federal Register delaying the 

compliance date until April 1, 2005 for 

FMVSS No. 403 and July 1, 2005 for 

FMVSS No. 404.5 On July 15, 2005, the 

agency published in the Federal 

Register its disposition of petitions for 

reconsideration of its October 1, 2004 

final rule and other submissions 

regarding that final rule.6 The July 15, 

2005 document did not address 

submissions received from the Blue Bird 

Body Company (Blue Bird), the School 

Bus Manufacturers Technical Council 

(SBMTC), which represents school bus 

manufacturers (including Blue Bird), 

and the Manufacturers Council of Small 

School Buses (MCSSB), an affiliate of 

the National Truck Equipment 

Association formed to represent the 

interest of small manufacturers. The 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
20560 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

7 72 FR 72326 (Docket No. NHTSA–2007–0052). 

submissions, which were styled as 

petitions for reconsideration, requested 

changes in the required level of lighting 

on public use lift platforms. Since the 

agency did not address that issue of 

lighting levels in the October 2004 final 

rule, there was no agency action 

regarding lighting to be reconsidered. 

The agency stated in the notice that it 

would treat the submissions as petitions 

for rulemaking and respond in a 

separate notice. 

NHTSA received three additional 

petitions for rulemaking after July 15, 

2005, seeking revisions to FMVSS Nos. 

403 and 404. Specifically, we received 

petitions from Maxon Lift Corporation 

(Maxon), Ricon Corporation (Ricon) and 

the Lift-U Division of Hogan 

Manufacturing, Inc. (Lift-U), all of 

which are platform lift manufacturers. 

The petitioners requested that the 

agency amend: (A) The control panel 

switch requirements in S6.7.6.2 of 

FMVSS No. 403 so that lift controls in 

locations remote from the driver’s 

seating position are not subject to the 

illumination requirements in S5.3 of 

FMVSS No. 101; (B) the threshold 

warning signal requirements in S6.1.4 of 

FMVSS No. 403 to permit warning 

lights to be mounted in a location 

clearly visible in reference to the lift; (C) 

the threshold warning signal 

requirements in S6.1.4 and S6.1.6 of 

FMVSS No. 403 to clarify the units of 

measurement and minimum required 

luminance at the designated 

measurement point; (D) the threshold 

warning test in S7.4 of FMVSS No. 403 

to include a performance test for 

warning systems using infrared and 

other sensor technologies; (E) the 

wheelchair test device specification in 

S7.1.2 of FMVSS No. 403 to include 

anti-tip devices; (F) the wheelchair 

retention device impact test 

specifications in S7.7 of FMVSS No. 403 

to permit use of a loaded wheelchair test 

device; and (G) the requirements for 

platform lighting on public use lifts in 

S4.1.5 of FMVSS No. 404 to reduce the 

required illumination levels to those 

specified by the ADA and the Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA). 

II. Summary of the NPRM 

In a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) published on December 20, 

2007,7 NHTSA proposed to amend the 

text of FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404. That 

NPRM addressed the six pending 

petitions for rulemaking. The NPRM 

also proposed additional changes to 

FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 based upon 

NHTSA’s experience during compliance 

testing. 

First, in response to the petition from 

Maxon, NHTSA proposed an 

amendment to make it clear that the 

illumination requirements of FMVSS 

No. 101 do not apply to controls that are 

located outside the vicinity of the 

driver. Under the proposed 

amendments, controls within the 

vicinity of the driver, as defined in 

S5.3.4(a) of FMVSS No. 101, would be 

required to comply with the FMVSS No. 

101 illumination requirements. The 

purpose of the FMVSSS No. 101 

requirement is to prevent illuminated 

controls from distracting a driver who 

has adapted to dark ambient roadway 

conditions. That concern is not present 

for controls outside the vicinity of the 

driver. The proposed amendment also 

specified that lift controls outside the 

vicinity of the driver have a means for 

illuminating characters to make them 

visible under both daylight and 

nighttime conditions. 

In response to the petition from 

Maxon, NHTSA proposed an 

amendment to the threshold warning 

signal location in S6.1.4 of FMVSS No. 

403. The present language requires that 

the visual warning signal be installed 

such that it does not require more than 

a ± 15 degree side-to-side head rotation 

as viewed by a passenger in a 

wheelchair backing onto the platform 

from the interior of the vehicle. The 

agency acknowledged that the 

requirement created ambiguity because 

it did not specify whether the 

measurement was a line-of-sight 

measurement or whether peripheral 

vision may be used. Consequently, 

NHTSA proposed defining the 

requirement so that visual warning must 

be visible from a point 914 mm (3 ft) 

above the center of the threshold 

warning area. 

In response to the petition from 

Ricon, NHTSA proposed an amendment 

to clarify the units of measurement and 

minimum required luminance of the 

visible threshold warning signal. The 

visual warning is required to be a 

flashing red beacon with a minimum 

intensity of 20 candela, and the 

intensity measurement is taken away 

from the source. Ricon stated that it had 

confirmed that ‘‘candela’’ is a 

measurement of output at the source, 

and, to measure luminous intensity at a 

specified distance from a source, the 

measurement should be specified in 

‘‘lux’’ or ‘‘foot-candles.’’ In response, 

NHTSA proposed removing the 

requirement that the visible intensity be 

measured away from the source and 

replaced it with a more general visibility 

requirement. 

In response to the petition from LiftU, NHTSA proposed revising S7.4 to 

include a performance test for threshold 

warning systems using infrared and 

other technologies. Lift-U acknowledged 

that the current test is effective for 

testing technologies that sense weight. 

However, Lift-U stated that the 

substantive requirement in S6.1 does 

not specify the use of a warning device 

that senses weight. NHTSA proposed 

amending S7.4 to include the option of 

performing the current threshold 

warning test with an occupant in the 

wheelchair test device. 

In response to the petition from 

Ricon, NHTSA proposed amending the 

wheelchair retention impact test 

specifications in S7.7 to permit the 

addition of a 50 kg (110 pound) weight 

to the wheelchair test device during the 

test. Ricon contended, and NHTSA’s 

test data confirmed, that the center of 

gravity of an unloaded wheelchair 

changes significantly upon impact with 

an outer barrier. That change, when 

combined with continued forward 

motion of the drive wheels, caused the 

test device to flip backwards, resulting 

in failure of the test. NHTSA proposed 

allowing the addition of the weight 

because this failure is due to the test 

procedure rather than any inadequacy 

in the wheelchair retention device. 

The petition from Ricon and the 

recent testing also caused NHTSA to 

propose amending the wheelchair 

retention test specifications in S7.7 and 

the inner roll stop test specifications in 

S7.8 to provide for the turning off the 

wheelchair drive motor after the initial 

impact by the test device. The agency 

stated that it could be difficult to design 

wheelchair retention devices and inner 

roll stops that protect wheelchair 

passengers from all possible situations 

without interfering with the normal 

operation of the lift. The agency also 

stated its belief that it was sufficient to 

ensure that the strength and 

configuration of wheelchair retention 

devices and inner roll stops are 

designed so that wheelchairs will not 

plow through or roll over them. In a 

typical real world situation, persons 

occupying wheelchairs would not be 

operating them at high rates of speed on 

the platform, and would turn off the 

drive power upon impact with a barrier. 

The agency proposed amendments to 

the test specifications in S7.7 and S7.8 

because maintaining power after the 

initial impact may result in testing 

inconsistencies due to differences in the 

drive wheel torque and stall rates of 

some test devices. Turning off the power 

would also stabilize the wheelchair test 

device after impact and prevent damage 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20561 

8Public Law 104–113. 

9NTEA’s comments were on behalf of two of its 

affiliate divisions—the MCSSB and the Mid-Size 

Bus Manufacturers Association (MSBMA). 

to the wheelchair test device and the 

lift. 

As a consequence of this amendment, 

NHTSA also proposed amending S6.4.7 

to eliminate the requirement that the 

wheelchair test device remain upright 

with all of its wheels in contact with the 

platform surface following impact. 

Instead, NHTSA proposed to revise 

S6.4.7 to provide that a wheelchair 

retention device passes the impact test 

if, after impact, the wheelchair test 

device remains supported by the 

platform surface with none of the axles 

of its wheels extending beyond the 

plane that is perpendicular to the 

platform reference plane (Figure 1) 

which passes through the edge of the 

platform surface that is traversed when 

entering or exiting the platform from the 

ground level loading position. The 

proposed test criteria references axles 

rather than wheels to prevent the 

occurrence of another type of test failure 

during rearward testing, i.e., one in 

which the large wheels of the 

wheelchair test device may rest on the 

platform and touch the outer barrier 

with the tires extending beyond the 

plane after impact. A similar 

amendment was proposed to the inner 

roll stop test. 

In response to petitions from Blue 

Bird, the SBMTC, and the MCSSB, the 

agency proposed reducing the platform 

illumination requirements for public 

lifts in S4.1.5 of FMVSS No. 404. 

NHTSA proposed reducing the 

illumination requirements to those 

specified by the ADA and the FTA. 

NHTSA intended that its current 

requirements not produce an additional 

burden on public use manufacturers. 

However, NHTSA was convinced by the 

petitioners’ arguments that the agency 

was placing additional burdens on 

manufacturers by requiring that they 

comply with both the ADA 

requirements and the more rigorous 

requirements in FMVSS No. 404. 

Furthermore, NHTSA noted the 

intervening enactment of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act,8 which requires Federal agencies to 

use available technical standards that 

are developed or adopted by a voluntary 

consensus standards body, in lieu of 

government-unique standards, except 

where use of those voluntary consensus 

standards is inconsistent with law or 

otherwise impractical. 

NHTSA also proposed four technical 

changes. First, NHTSA proposed 

amending S7 of FMVSS No. 403 to 

require the performance of the handrail 

test in S7.12 on a lift/vehicle 

combination rather than on a test jig. 

The handrail requirements in S6.4.9.8 

require 38 mm (1.5 in) of clearance 

between each handrail and any portion 

of the vehicle, throughout the range of 

passenger operation. It is not possible to 

determine that clearance if the test is 

conducted on a jig. 

NHTSA also proposed a correction to 

Figure 2 of FMVSS No. 403. Currently, 

the height of the measurement point 

from which the intensity of the 

threshold audible warning is measured 

is identified as 919 mm. The proposed 

amendment would replace that distance 

with the correct measurement point of 

914 mm (3 feet). 

NHTSA also proposed an amendment 

to clarify the control panel switch 

requirements of S6.7.4. Currently, there 

is an ambiguity regarding what must 

happen when two or more switches are 

actuated simultaneously. The proposed 

amendment would require that, if one or 

more functions are actuated while an 

initial function is actuated, the platform 

must either continue in the direction 

dictated by the original function or stop. 

NHTSA proposed amending the 

interlock requirements and test 

procedures in S6.10.2.4, S6.10.2.5, 

S6.10.2.6, S6.10.2.7, S7.5, and S7.6 of 

FMVSS No. 403. The purpose of the 

proposed amendments was to eliminate 

confusion, discovered as a result of 

compliance testing and communications 

from a lift manufacturer. The proposed 

amendments would revise and 

renumber S7.5.2 and S7.5.3 to make 

clear that those provisions constitute a 

single test procedure that is applicable 

to both the requirements of S6.10.2.5 

and S6.10.2.6. The proposed 

amendments would also change the test 

procedure set forth in those provisions 

to ensure that an outer barrier is fully 

deployed by the time the platform is 75 

mm (3 in) above the ground. NHTSA 

also proposed a similar amendment to 

the inner roll stop test procedure set 

forth in S7.6.2 and S7.6.3. 

Finally, NHTSA included discussion 

of a November 3, 2005 interpretation. 

That interpretation is repeated in 

Section V below to ensure wide-spread 

dissemination. 

III. Comments and Analysis 

NHTSA received five comments in 

response to the NPRM from the 

following parties: Maxon Lift 

Corporation (Maxon); the American 

Association of Justice (AAJ); the 

National Truck Equipment Association 

(NTEA); 9 Blue Bird Body Company 

(Blue Bird); and Lift-U Division of 

Hogan Manufacturing, Inc. (Lift-U). 

Maxon addressed the handrail test 

procedure and the outer barrier 

interlock test procedure. The AAJ’s 

comment solely addressed the issue of 

preemption of State tort law. The NTEA 

and Blue Bird addressed the platform 

illumination test procedure. Lift-U’s 

comment addressed the barrier impact 

test. We address these comments in 

detail below. 

We received no comments on several 

topics for which amendments were 

proposed in the December 2007 NPRM. 

We received no comments on the 

following proposed amendments: 

Limiting the FMVSS No. 101 control 

illumination requirement to lift controls 

located near the driver; modifying 

location and intensity requirements for 

the threshold warning beacon; including 

the option of using a 5th percentile 

female for the threshold warning test 

procedure to allow for the possibility of 

lift systems using infrared sensors; and 

continuing to exclude the anti-tip 

devices from the specification for the 

standard test wheelchair specified in 

paragraph S7.1.2 of FMVSS No. 403. 

Except as discussed below, we have 

included the proposed amendments in 

the regulatory text without further 

discussion for the reasons set forth in 

the December 2007 NPRM. 

A. Use of Auxiliary Retention Devices 

for Interlock Procedure 

Maxon commented on the proposed 

technical change that would amend the 

test procedure for outer barrier interlock 

testing. In the December 2007 NPRM, 

NHTSA proposed revising the test 

procedure to ensure that the outer 

barrier by fully deployed by the time the 

platform is 75 mm (3 in) off the ground. 

The proposed language would provide 

for the platform to be moved up until 

the platform is 75 mm (3 in) above the 

ground. Thereafter, the front wheel of 

the wheelchair test device is placed on 

the edge of the outer barrier and the 

platform is moved up until it stops. If 

the interlocks are working correctly, the 

wheel of the wheelchair test device will 

prevent the outer barrier from 

deploying, the wheelchair test device 

wheel will not move vertically upward 

more than 13 mm (0.5 in), and the 

platform will stop automatically before 

the upper surface is greater than 75 mm 

(3 in) above the ground. 

Maxon expressed concern involving 

the potential use of auxiliary wheelchair 

retention devices such as belts. Maxon 

states that that these devices are 

designed to disable lift operation when 

they are unfastened. Accordingly, 

Maxon contends, it would be necessary 

to fasten such devices prior to 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
20562 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

conducting the outer barrier interlock 

test in S7.5. Maxon requested 

clarification as to whether belt-type 

retention devices can and should be 

fastened prior to testing. 

Agency’s Response: We are clarifying 

the proposed language as a result of 

Maxon’s comment. We recognize that 

auxiliary retention devices such as a 

belt can disable lift operation when they 

are not fastened, and we agree with 

Maxon that the failure to fasten such a 

belt would render the test moot. To 

remedy the ambiguity, we are adding 

language to S7.5.1.1, as proposed, to 

clarify that other retention devices are 

configured so that they do not prevent 

lift operation. 

B. Barrier Impact Test 

Lift-U commented on proposed 

changes to the barrier impact test. In the 

December 2007 NPRM, the agency 

proposed several changes to the barrier 

impact test, including a change to the 

test procedure so that the wheelchair 

test device’s power is cut off after initial 

impact with the barrier. The agency 

stated that turning off power during the 

wheelchair retention and inner roll stop 

impact tests would stabilize the 

wheelchair test device after impact and 

thereby help prevent technical failures 

and related damage to the wheelchair 

test device or the lift. 

Lift-U contended in its comment that 

the power to the drive wheels should be 

maintained after impact to test the 

effectiveness of the wheelchair retention 

device. Lift-U stated that the wheelchair 

retention device is, arguably, the most 

important safety device on the lift 

platform system because it is the only 

means of preventing a wheelchair and 

passenger from rolling off the edge of 

the platform. Lift-U stated that an 

effective test method must demonstrate 

that the retention device cannot be 

defeated. 

Lift-U also disagreed with some of the 

agency’s assertions in the December 

2007 NPRM in support of the proposed 

change. NHTSA stated that, in typical 

real world situations, occupied 

wheelchairs will not be moving at high 

rates of speed on the platform. Lift-U 

contended that the agency’s reasoning is 

flawed because the test itself is an 

implicit acknowledgement that it is 

possible for occupants to lose control of 

their mobility device on a platform. LiftU further stated that the agency’s 

assumption that occupants would 

terminate drive power upon impact 

with a barrier assumes that the occupant 

is able to do so. 

Lift-U stated that the proposed test 

procedure must be evaluated against the 

stated test objective. In its comment, 

Lift-U noted the agency’s two 

objectives—preventing the test device 

from plowing through or rolling over the 

top of the barrier. 

Lift-U questioned what is meant by 

the term ‘‘initial impact.’’ Lift-U stated 

that, if it is defined as ‘‘initial contact,’’ 

then the release of power to the 

wheelchair test device would subject 

the barrier to an inconsequential impact. 

Lift-U also stated that the moment of 

‘‘initial impact’’ could be the moment 

the barrier reaches its maximum 

deflection due to the impact, thereby 

demonstrating that the barrier is 

sufficient to absorb the impact. 

However, even if this more rigorous 

interpretation is intended, Lift-U 

contended that this part of the test 

cannot demonstrate whether the barrier 

is effective at preventing a wheelchair 

from rolling over the top. Lift-U stated 

that height and rigidity are the two 

aspects of barrier design that would 

determine its effectiveness, and that 

even a tall barrier would be susceptible 

to a wheelchair rolling over it if the 

barrier is not sufficiently rigid, while a 

rigid barrier could be defeated if its 

height were insufficient to prevent being 

over-topped by a wheelchair. In either 

case, Lift-U contends that the adequacy 

of the barrier can be determined only 

when the wheelchair has had the 

opportunity to climb over it after the 

initial impact. 

Lift-U questioned the agency’s 

assertion that continued application of 

wheelchair drive power leads to 

technical failures that are unrelated to 

the barrier’s safety. Lift-U also 

questioned the agency’s statement that it 

could be difficult to design retention 

devices and inner roll stops that protect 

wheelchair passengers in all situations 

without interfering with normal lift 

operation. Lift-U concluded that the 

present regulatory language provides a 

means to test all aspects of a barrier’s 

design and thereby demonstrates its 

adequacy. 

Finally, Lift-U supported other 

proposed changes to the barrier impact 

test. Specifically, Lift-U supported the 

option of adding a weight to the 

wheelchair test device and the change 

in the compliance criteria. 

Agency’s Response: NHTSA is not 

making any substantive changes to the 

proposal based upon Lift-U’s comment. 

However, we are clarifying the 

regulatory text to ensure that the term 

‘‘initial impact’’ is not misunderstood. 

We recognize the merit in Lift-U’s 

argument in favor of retaining the 

present test, in which the power to the 

wheelchair test device is not turned off 

until all wheelchair motion stops 

(except for the drive wheels). 

Nevertheless, we believe that a test in 

which the power to the wheelchair test 

device is turned off after initial impact 

is more practicable while also meeting 

the safety purpose of the standard. 

Our experience to date with the 

present test procedure has demonstrated 

that the behavior of the wheelchair test 

device is often unstable and erratic if 

drive power continues to be applied 

after impact. We have observed that the 

wheelchair test device can bounce 

violently on the platform, repeatedly 

ram into the barriers and other 

components of the lift, flip over 

backwards or sideways, or fall off the 

platform completely. Some of this 

behavior may reflect possible outcomes 

of actual lift use, as Lift-U has stated 

(e.g., a malfunctioning wheelchair). 

However, the test is so inconsistent as 

to be impracticable for compliance 

testing. Furthermore, the test is often 

damaging to the wheelchair test device. 

Regarding the meaning of the term 

‘‘initial impact,’’ we agree with Lift-U 

that turning off drive power 

immediately at the moment of initial 

contact with the barrier would be an 

insufficient test of the barrier’s integrity. 

Allowing the entire impact to be 

sustained by the barrier before turning 

off drive power to the wheelchair test 

device (that is, releasing the joystick 

controller) involves a more substantial 

infliction of force against that barrier. 

When the wheelchair test device strikes 

the barrier, slack and elasticity allow the 

wheelchair test device to deflect the 

barrier until the striking force is 

counteracted. The barrier will deflect 

and bend before developing enough 

force to stop and begin to reverse the 

wheelchair test device’s motion. 

We believe ‘‘initial impact’’ includes 

all of the transfer of energy from the 

wheelchair test device to the barrier that 

takes place during this process. Our 

intention is that power to the 

wheelchair test device should be 

released only after the full impact cycle 

described above is completed. The 

proposed change merely eliminates 

additional impacts which may occur as 

a result of the wheelchair test device 

bouncing repeatedly off the barrier. We 

believe those subsequent impacts are 

unnecessary and that withstanding the 

first full impact is both a rigorous 

demonstration of barrier integrity and 

an adequate test of compliance with the 

requirement. To clarify our intent, we 

are changing the text of S7.7.2.4 to make 

clear that the complete initial impact of 

the wheelchair test device is absorbed 

by the barrier. Because identical 

language is also used in the procedure 

for the inner barrier impact test, we are 

making an identical change to S7.8.3. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20563 

Otherwise, we are proceeding with the 

change in the barrier impact test 

procedure as proposed in the December 

2007 NPRM. 

C. Handrail Test Procedures 

Among the technical changes 

proposed in the December 2007 NPRM 

were amendments to the handrail test 

procedures in FMVSS No. 403. S6.4.9 

details the handrail requirements for 

public and private use lifts. S6.4.9.8 of 

that standard provides that, when tested 

in accordance with S7.12.1, there must 

be at least 38 mm (1.5 in) of clearance 

between each handrail and any portion 

of the vehicle, throughout the range of 

passenger operation. In order to measure 

this clearance, the lift must be mounted 

on a vehicle during the test. The 

proposed amendments would require 

the handrail test in S7.12 to be 

performed on a lift/vehicle combination 

rather than on a test jig. 

Maxon commented that NHTSA 

should not make the proposed change 

for three reasons. First, Maxon noted 

that measurement of handrail 

displacement on a lift mounted on a test 

fixture is already difficult and it would 

be made more difficult by mounting the 

lift on a vehicle. Maxon stated that the 

added movement could make the 

accuracy of the measurement 

questionable. Second, Maxon observed 

that S7.12.1 does not require 

measurement throughout the range of 

passenger operation, which does not 

ensure that clearance is maintained at 

all lift positions. Third, Maxon noted 

that S7.12.1 and S7.12.2 do not specify 

a direction for the applied test load. As 

a consequence, Maxon contends, a 

manufacturer could test only in the 

most favorable direction and test only 

one vehicle. Maxon concluded that the 

proposed change would increase the 

testing burden without providing any 

increase in safety to passengers because 

the test would not ensure that lifts have 

adequate handrail clearance in all 

applications. 

Agency’s Response: We have not 

made any changes to the proposed 

handrail test procedures based on 

Maxon’s comments. It appears from 

Maxon’s comments that the commenter 

has misinterpreted the handrail test 

requirement and the general 

applicability of FMVSS No. 403. 

Regarding the use of an actual vehicle 

rather than a test fixture, we believe that 

the purpose of the test is to reflect real 

world use and clearances. Although 

some FMVSS No. 403 test procedures 

can be performed on a test fixture 

without any compromise in the validity 

of the test or its applicability to actual 

use of the lift, in many cases a handrail 

test performed on a test fixture would 

not simulate actual handrail clearance 

and could fail to ensure the safety of lift 

users under actual operating conditions. 

Regarding measurement accuracy, we 

note that Maxon did not provide any 

information to substantiate their 

assertion that handrail tests conducted 

on a lift/vehicle combination are 

inadequate compared to tests conducted 

on a test fixture. Thus, we do not have 

any basis for determining that handrail 

displacement tests on a lift/vehicle 

combination are impractical. 

Maxon’s other concerns are based on 

a misunderstanding of how NHTSA 

conducts compliance testing. Although 

Maxon states that measurement of 

handrail displacement is required only 

in one lift position, we observe that 

S6.4.9.8 states that the required handrail 

clearance must be maintained 

throughout the range of passenger 

operation. Maxon’s statement that a lift 

manufacturer could test handrail 

deflection only in a single direction is 

similarly incorrect. Paragraphs S6.4.9.7 

and S6.4.9.9 both state that the required 

force is applied at any point and in any 

direction on the handrail. NHTSA’s 

regulations state, at 49 CFR 571.4, that 

the term ‘‘any’’ indicates that a 

requirement must be met at all points 

within a range of possible points. In this 

case, the use of the word ‘‘any’’ in 

S6.4.9.7 and S6.4.9.9 means that a 

handrail can be tested and must comply 

with the standard in every possible 

direction in which it deflects when 

subjected to the specified force. 

D. Measurement Procedure for Platform 

Illumination 

Both Blue Bird and the NTEA 

submitted comments related to the 

proposed test procedure for platform 

illumination in FMVSS No. 404. The 

platform illumination requirement 

applies to public-use lifts and is 

intended to facilitate lift use in 

darkness. S4.1.5 currently requires that 

public use lifts have a light or set of 

lights that provides at least 54 lm/m2 (5 

lm/ft2) of luminance on all portions of 

the surface of the platform, throughout 

the range of passenger operation. 

In the December 2007 NPRM, the 

agency proposed to reduce the required 

light intensity from 54 lm/m2 (5 lm/ft2) 

to 22 lm/m2 (2 lm/ft2). This reduction 

would bring the FMVSS No. 404 

requirement into accord with ADA and 

FTA light intensity requirements. 

In response to comments received by 

the agency regarding the lack of a test 

procedure to demonstrate compliance 

with the lighting requirement, NHTSA 

proposed amendments to S4.1.5 to set 

forth how platform illumination is to be 

measured. Specifically, the agency 

proposed the following procedures for 

platform illumination measurement: 

• Illumination measurements would 

be recorded with the vehicle engine 

shut off. 

• The vehicle and lift would be in an 

environment in which there is no 

ambient light. 

• The sensor portion of the light 

meter would be within 50 mm (2 in) of 

the surface being measured. 

• The measurement would be made 

with a light meter that has a range 

comparable to a minimum of 0 to 100 

Lux, in increments comparable to 1 Lux 

or less, an accuracy of ± 5% of the actual 

reading and a sampling rate of at least 

2 Hz. 

Vehicle Battery Condition 

Both Blue Bird and the NTEA 

observed that, because the proposed test 

would be conducted with the vehicle’s 

engine shut off, the light illumination 

level would be affected by the vehicle 

battery condition. The NTEA asked if 

NHTSA agreed that the test should be 

conducted with the vehicle’s battery 

fully charged with a voltage of 

approximately 12 volts DC. Blue Bird 

suggested adding a paragraph to FMVSS 

No. 404 that would specify the battery 

condition at the time of testing. Blue 

Bird’s suggested regulatory language 

would require that the battery be in a 

fully charged condition as defined by 

the battery manufacturer or, if such 

information cannot be obtained, 

industry-accepted third party sources be 

consulted, and would include 

measurements of the voltage, 

temperature, and specific gravity of the 

battery. 

Agency’s Response: We agree that the 

state of charge of a vehicle battery could 

affect illumination testing under our 

proposed test procedure. We proposed 

that the test be conducted when the 

engine is not running, which we believe 

is appropriate because lifts often must 

be operated with the engine turned off. 

The proposed test procedure simulates 

a more rigorous condition than if the 

engine were running. 

We have considered specifying a 

minimum voltage for the vehicle battery 

for the platform illumination test. 

However, FMVSS No. 404 does not 

directly concern the operation of the 

vehicle’s electrical system. Furthermore, 

the specification of a minimum battery 

voltage could be design-restrictive and 

would neglect differences between 

vehicles. For example, some liftequipped vehicles could have an 

auxiliary battery, which may or may not 

provide extra power for lift lighting. In 

such a case, it could be unclear which 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
20564 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

10 75 FR 33515, 33524–5; June 14, 2010. 

battery voltage would be applicable to 

the FMVSS No. 404 test. Furthermore, 

we do not believe regulation of the 

specific gravity of a battery is warranted 

because compliance tests are conducted 

on new vehicles. Consequently, the 

batteries of vehicles that are tested 

would be relatively new and unaffected 

by dilution, sulfation, or other factors 

that could degrade the electrolyte in 

older batteries. 

We believe that a performance-based 

approach for the illumination test will 

be simpler and less design-restrictive. 

Accordingly, we are altering the 

proposed test procedure to require that 

the lift-equipped vehicle must be 

operated prior to testing. Specifically, 

we are requiring that the engine be run 

for a minimum of 20 minutes by idling 

or driving the test vehicle with the 

vehicle’s HVAC system turned off. 

Thereafter, the engine would be turned 

off and the test conducted. We believe 

20 minutes is an appropriate amount of 

time to charge the battery and, if 

necessary, to warm it to conduct a 

consistent test. We believe that this 

performance-based test, rather than the 

minimum battery voltage proposed by 

the commenters, ensures sufficient 

battery voltage in a way that closely 

reflects real-world use of a platform lift 

system mounted on a vehicle. 

Illumination Levels 

The NTEA’s comment supported 

adopting the ADA requirements for 

platform illumination levels. However, 

the NTEA noted that, to fully comply 

with ADA requirements, vehicle 

manufacturers have added more lighting 

in the vehicle doorway to achieve the 

lighting required on the ground beyond 

the deployed lift. The NTEA states that 

this additional lighting could be 

problematic because the intensity and 

positioning of lamps have the potential 

to obscure a lift operator’s vision and 

could create a burn hazard. 

Agency’s Response: We have not 

made any change to our proposal based 

on this comment. We have no authority 

to alter the ADA requirement for 

lighting the ground beyond a deployed 

platform lift. The December 2007 NPRM 

concerned only illumination of the 

platform itself, and lighting the ground 

beyond a platform lift is beyond the 

scope of what was proposed in the 

December 2007 NPRM. The NTEA’s 

comment acknowledges that this is not 

an issue specific to NHTSA. 

Measurement of Illumination 

Blue Bird requested that the light 

meter sample rate not be specified in the 

platform illumination test procedure 

and that the sensor measurement range 

not be specified. With respect to light 

meter sample rate, Blue Bird stated that 

specifying a light meter sample rate 

could be interpreted to prohibit the use 

of analog light meters. Blue Bird also 

requested that the measurement range 

for the light meter not be specified 

because it is not unusual for parts of a 

platform lift surface to be illuminated in 

excess of 100 Lux, and a technician 

conducting measurements would be 

able to judge an appropriate 

measurement range. 

Agency’s Response: Regarding the 

light meter measurement range, we note 

that the 0 to 100 Lux measurement 

range set forth in the proposal is a 

minimum range. Thus, any meter with 

a full-scale range equal to or greater than 

that is acceptable. In cases with the 

illumination level exceeds 100 Lux, 

there is no limitation on using a device 

with a greater range (or using a higher 

scale setting on a device with selectable 

ranges). We also note that the capability 

of taking illumination readings above 

100 Lux is superfluous because 

compliance with S4.1.5 is established 

far below 100 Lux. 

Nevertheless, we have reevaluated 

those specifications and believe that 

they do not need to be included in the 

regulatory text. Accordingly, we are 

deleting those specifications from the 

proposed S4.1.5 test procedure, and 

manufacturers will be able to certify 

their platform lighting system using any 

analog or digital light meter. However, 

we give notice that, for NHTSA’s 

compliance testing, we intend to use a 

light meter that meets the specifications 

set forth in the December 2007 NPRM, 

and we will be amending the FMVSS 

No. 404 Test Procedure, NHTSA TP– 

404, accordingly. 

E. Preemption 

In the view of AAJ, NHTSA’s 

discussion in the December 2007 NPRM 

of the 2000 Supreme Court case, Geier 

v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 

861, and the agency’s assessment of the 

possibility of preemption represented a 

‘‘sudden decision to claim [implied] 

preemption’’ of State tort law. 

Agency’s Response: The discussion in 

that notice was similar to the 

discussions in other agency notices of 

that period. As this agency has 

previously explained, AAJ generally 

misinterpreted those discussions.10

IV. Technical Corrections 

The amendments in Section IV were 

not proposed in the December 2007 

NPRM. The agency has determined that 

good cause exists for the following 

technical corrections to be issued 

without publishing advance notice of 

the amendments or providing 

opportunity for public comment. The 

amendments discussed in Section IV 

correct obvious errors in regulatory text 

created by NHTSA’s FMVSS Nos. 403 

and 404 rulemakings. In one case, the 

technical correction reverses an earlier 

inadvertent change to regulatory text 

that was made without any discussion 

in the preamble. 

A. Definition of Motor Home 

In the December 2002 final rule 

establishing FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404, 

NHTSA added a definition for ‘‘motor 

home’’ to 49 CFR 571.3 that applies to 

all FMVSSs. In that final rule, the 

agency categorized a motor home as a 

‘‘multi-purpose vehicle.’’ However, 

NHTSA intended to categorize a ‘‘motor 

home’’ as a ‘‘multipurpose passenger 

vehicle.’’ The term ‘‘multipurpose 

passenger vehicle’’ is defined in section 

571.3, whereas the term ‘‘multi-purpose 

vehicle’’ is not defined. We are 

correcting this obvious error in this final 

rule. 

B. Change to Application Section 

In the October 2004 final rule 

responding to petitions for 

reconsideration, NHTSA amended the 

‘‘Application’’ section (S3) of FMVSS 

Nos. 403 and 404. The agency made 

changes to the ‘‘Application’’ section to 

make clear that FMVSS Nos. 403 and 

404 do not apply to systems involving 

specialized medical transport. In the 

December 2004 interim final rule, 

NHTSA again amended the 

‘‘Application’’ section to delay the 

compliance dates for FMVSS Nos. 403 

and 404. In the December 2004 interim 

final rule, the agency inadvertently 

deleted the changes made in the October 

2004 final rule. The changes to the 

‘‘Application’’ sections in the December 

2004 interim final rule were intended 

solely to delay the effective date. The 

agency did not discuss changing or 

intend to change the types of platform 

lifts or vehicles to which FMVSS Nos. 

403 and 404 apply. This final rule 

corrects this inadvertent change in the 

applicability of FMVSS Nos. 403 and 

404. 

C. Height Range Measurements in Edge 

Guard Test 

We are changing the phrase ‘‘less 

than’’ to ‘‘more than’’ in two places in 

the edge guard test in S7.7.4 of FMVSS 

No. 403. The procedures set forth in 

paragraphs S7.7.4.3 and S7.7.4.6 specify 

a range of heights at which the edge 

guard test requirements are applicable. 

The requirements are supposed to apply 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20565 

in a height range extending from 90 mm 

(3.5 in) above ground to 38 mm (1.5 in) 

below vehicle floor level. However, the 

regulatory text sets forth the upper limit 

as ‘‘less than’’ 38 mm (1.5 in) below 

floor level. In order for the test to be 

correct, the upper limit should be 

specified as ‘‘more than’’ 38 mm (1.5 in) 

below floor level—meaning that the 

platform must be lower in height than 

38 mm (1.5 in) below the vehicle floor. 

Otherwise, the test would only be 

conducted in two places, as there is 

unlikely to be any height that is both 

less than 38 mm (1.5 in) below floor 

level and 90 mm (3.5 in) above the 

ground. If that was NHTSA’s intent, 

there would have been no need for the 

test to be conducted at a range of 

heights. In order to conduct this test as 

NHTSA intended, it is necessary that 

the platform be no higher than 38 mm 

(1.5 in) below the vehicle floor to ensure 

deployment of an inner barrier or rollstop. This final rule amends paragraphs 

S7.7.4.3 and S7.7.4.6 of FMVSS No. 403 

to correct this obvious error. 

D. Test Conditions for Inner Roll Stop 

Test 

There was an error in the proposed 

regulatory text of paragraph S7 in the 

December 2007 NPRM. Paragraph S7 

sets forth which of the test procedures 

must be performed on a platform lift 

installed on a vehicle and which may be 

performed with the lift mounted on a 

fixture or test jig. The proposed 

language of paragraph S7 regrouped the 

handrail test procedure of S7.12 with 

those tests that must be performed on a 

vehicle/lift combination. In the 

proposed regulatory text, we 

erroneously included the inner roll stop 

test procedure of S7.8 in both groups of 

tests. The inner roll stop test procedure 

must be performed on a lift/vehicle 

combination as the current regulatory 

text states. We have corrected this 

inadvertent error in this final rule. 

E. Clarification of Wheelchair Retention 

and Inner Roll Stop Requirements 

In the December 2007 NPRM, the 

agency proposed amending S6.4.7 to 

delete the requirement that the 

wheelchair test device remain upright 

with all its wheels in contact with the 

platform surface following impact. 

Instead, NHTSA proposed to revise 

S6.4.7 to provide that a wheelchair 

retention device passes the impact test 

if, after impact, the wheelchair test 

device remains supported by the 

platform surface with none of the axles 

of its wheels extending beyond the 

plane perpendicular to the platform 

reference plane (Figure 1) which passes 

through the edge of the platform surface 

that is transverse when entering or 

exiting the platform from the ground 

level loading position. We have 

modified the language to clarify that 

such a plane would be tangent to the 

edge of the platform surface. We have 

made a similar change to the proposed 

amendment to S6.4.8.3 using the same 

language in relation to the inner roll 

stop requirement. 

V. November 3, 2005 Interpretation 

On November 3, 2005, we issued an 

interpretation letter related to S7.4 of 

FMVSS No. 403, addressed to Maxon. 

The November 2005 interpretation 

clarified specific procedures that are 

performed as part of the threshold 

warning signal test. Although the 

agency has decided against revising the 

language of S7.4, we include a 

discussion of the matter in this 

document to ensure wide-spread 

dissemination of the interpretation. 

In asking about the threshold warning 

requirements, the incoming letter 

suggested that there was an apparent 

inconsistency between the requirement 

and the associated test procedure. 

The agency responded, explaining, as 

follows, that the specified test 

procedure for the threshold warning 

system is consistent with that 

requirement: 

As part of FMVSS No. 403, the agency 

established a threshold warning signal 

requirement for platform lifts in part to 

minimize the risk of a lift user backing off a 

vehicle before a lift is properly positioned. 

S6.1 of FMVSS No. 403 requires an 

appropriate threshold warning signal to be 

activated when any portion of a passenger’s 

body or mobility aid occupies the platform 

threshold area defined in S4 of that standard, 

and the platform is more than 25 mm (1 inch) 

below the vehicle floor reference plane. A 

platform lift must meet this requirement 

when tested in accordance with S7.4 of the 

standard. 

In your letter you stated that it is possible 

to design a threshold warning system that 

‘‘will pass a test that is performed as 

described in S7.4 and not completely fulfill 

the requirements of S6.1.3’’. You described a 

threshold warning system designed with an 

optical sensor at the interior boundary of the 

platform threshold area. You stated that such 

a system would activate the warning signal 

only when a passenger is crossing the 

boundary of the threshold at the same time 

as the platform is lower than 25 mm from the 

vehicle floor. You further stated that such a 

system would not activate a signal if a 

passenger were completely within the 

threshold area when the platform reached the 

specified distance from the vehicle floor. 

Your letter indicated that you believe that 

such a system would ‘‘pass’’ the test 

procedure, but not comply fully with the 

requirement. 

A system as you described would not 

comply with the requirements of S6.1.3 when 

tested as specified in S7.4. As stated above, 

S6.1 requires the appropriate warning signal 

to activate when tested in accordance with 

S7.4. S7.4.2 specifies that, with the platform 

lift at the vehicle floor loading position: 

[P]lace one front wheel of the unloaded 

wheelchair test device [specified in S7.1.2] 

on any portion of the threshold area defined 

in S4. Move the platform down until the 

alarm is actuated. Remove the test 

wheelchair wheel from the threshold area to 

deactivate the alarm. Measure the vertical 

distance between the platform and the 

threshold area and determine whether that 

distance is greater than 25 mm (1 in). 

Thus, S7.4.2 specifies placing the front 

wheel of the test device on any portion of the 

threshold area. As explained in 49 CFR 

571.4, the use of the term ‘‘any’’ in 

connection with a range of values or set of 

items means generally, ‘‘the totality of the 

items or values, any one of which may be 

selected by the [agency] for testing’’. 

Accordingly, the procedure specified in 

S7.4.2 includes placement of the front wheel 

that could result in the entire test device 

being within the threshold area prior to the 

platform being lowered. This also includes 

placement that results in a portion of the test 

device being on the platform. 

Given the discussion above, a system such 

as you described would not comply when 

tested under S7.4.2. As such, there is no 

discrepancy between the requirement of 

S6.1.3 and the test procedure specified in 

S7.4. 

VI. Compliance Date 

The amendments made by this final 

rule are mandatory for purposes of 

compliance 180 days after publication 

of this final rule. Optional compliance 

is permitted immediately upon 

publication of the final rule. We believe 

these dates are appropriate given that 

the amendments are for the purpose of 

clarifying the requirements of the 

standard and providing further 

flexibility in compliance. 

VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 

13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures 

NHTSA has considered the impacts of 

this rulemaking action under Executive 

Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, 

and the Department of Transportation’s 

regulatory policies and procedures. This 

action was not reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget under E.O. 

12866. The agency has considered the 

impact of this action under the 

Department of Transportation’s 

regulatory policies and procedures (44 

FR 11034; February 26, 1979), and has 

determined that it is not ‘‘significant’’ 

under them. This rulemaking document 

was not reviewed under E.O. 12866. 

This document makes amendments to 

FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 to clarify the 

requirements of the standard and to 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
20566 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

provide further flexibility in 

compliance. The impacts of the 

amendments are so minimal that a full 

regulatory evaluation is not required. 

Readers who are interested in the 

overall costs and benefits of the 

platform lift requirements are referred to 

the agency’s Final Economic 

Assessment for the December 2002 final 

rule (Docket No. NHTSA–2002–13917– 

3). The amendments made by this 

document will not change the costs and 

benefits in a quantifiable manner. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996), whenever an agency is required 

to publish a notice of rulemaking for 

any proposed or final rule, it must 

prepare and make available for public 

comment a regulatory flexibility 

analysis that describes the effect of the 

rule on small entities (i.e., small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small governmental jurisdictions). The 

Small Business Administration’s 

regulations at 13 CFR Part 121 define a 

small business, in part, as a business 

entity ‘‘which operates primarily within 

the United States.’’ (13 CFR 121.105(a)). 

No regulatory flexibility analysis is 

required if the head of an agency 

certifies the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

SBREFA amended the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act to require Federal 

agencies to provide a statement of the 

factual basis for certifying that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

NHTSA has considered the effects of 

this final rule under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. I certify that this final 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The final rule 

does not impose new requirements but 

instead amends FMVSS Nos. 403 and 

404 to clarify the requirements of the 

standards and to provide further 

flexibility in compliance. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

NHTSA has examined today’s rule 

pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 

FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and 

concluded that no additional 

consultation with States, local 

governments or their representatives is 

mandated beyond the rulemaking 

process. The agency has concluded that 

the rulemaking does not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant 

consultation with State and local 

officials or the preparation of a 

federalism summary impact statement. 

The rule does not have ‘‘substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ 

NHTSA rules can preempt in two 

ways. First, the National Traffic and 

Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an 

express preemption provision: 

When a motor vehicle safety standard is in 

effect under this chapter, a State or a political 

subdivision of a State may prescribe or 

continue in effect a standard applicable to 

the same aspect of performance of a motor 

vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if 

the standard is identical to the standard 

prescribed under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. 

30103(b)(1). 

It is this statutory command by Congress 

that preempts any non-identical State 

legislative and administrative law 

addressing the same aspect of 

performance. 

The express preemption provision 

described above is subject to a savings 

clause under which ‘‘[c]ompliance with 

a motor vehicle safety standard 

prescribed under this chapter does not 

exempt a person from liability at 

common law.’’ 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). 

Pursuant to this provision, State 

common law tort causes of action 

against motor vehicle manufacturers 

that might otherwise be preempted by 

the express preemption provision are 

generally preserved. 

However, the Supreme Court has 

recognized the possibility, in some 

instances, of implied preemption of 

such State common law tort causes of 

action by virtue of NHTSA’s rules, even 

if not expressly preempted. This second 

way that NHTSA rules can preempt is 

dependent upon there being an actual 

conflict between an FMVSS and the 

higher standard that would effectively 

be imposed on motor vehicle 

manufacturers if someone obtained a 

State common law tort judgment against 

the manufacturer, notwithstanding the 

manufacturer’s compliance with the 

NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA 

standards established by an FMVSS are 

minimum standards, a State common 

law tort cause of action that seeks to 

impose a higher standard on motor 

vehicle manufacturers will generally not 

be preempted. However, if and when 

such a conflict does exist—for example, 

when the standard at issue is both a 

minimum and a maximum standard— 

the State common law tort cause of 

action is impliedly preempted. See 

Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 

529 U.S. 861 (2000). 

Pursuant to Executive Order 13132 

and 12988, NHTSA has considered 

whether this rule could or should 

preempt State common law causes of 

action. The agency’s ability to announce 

its conclusion regarding the preemptive 

effect of one of its rules reduces the 

likelihood that preemption will be an 

issue in any subsequent tort litigation. 

To this end, the agency has examined 

the nature (e.g., the language and 

structure of the regulatory text) and 

objectives of today’s rule and finds that 

this rule, like many NHTSA rules, 

prescribes only a minimum safety 

standard. As such, NHTSA does not 

intend that this rule preempt State tort 

law that would effectively impose a 

higher standard on motor vehicle 

manufacturers than that established by 

today’s rule. Establishment of a higher 

standard by means of State tort law 

would not conflict with the minimum 

standard adopted here. Without any 

conflict, there could not be any implied 

preemption of a State common law tort 

cause of action. 

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

With respect to the review of the 

promulgation of a new regulation, 

section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, 

‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ (61 FR 4729, 

February 7, 1996) requires that 

Executive agencies make every 

reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies 

the effect on existing Federal law or 

regulation; (3) provides a clear legal 

standard for affected conduct, while 

promoting simplification and burden 

reduction; (4) clearly specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. This document is consistent 

with that requirement. 

Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes 

as follows. The issue of preemption is 

discussed above. NHTSA notes further 

that there is no requirement that 

individuals submit a petition for 

reconsideration or pursue other 

administrative proceeding before they 

may file suit in court. 

Protection of Children From 

Environmental Health and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19855, April 

23, 1997), applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20567 

11 67 FR 79416, 79438; December 27, 2002. 

12 72 FR 72326, 72333; December 20, 2007. 

environmental, health, or safety risk that 

the agency has reason to believe may 

have a disproportionate effect on 

children. If the regulatory action meets 

both criteria, the agency 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 the agency. 

Although this final rule is part of a 

rulemaking expected to have a positive 

safety impact on children, it is not an 

economically significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866. 

Consequently, no further analysis is 

required under Executive Order 13045. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), 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. There is no information 

collection requirement associated with 

this final rule. 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Under the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104–113), ‘‘all Federal 

agencies and departments shall use 

technical standards that are developed 

or adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies, using such technical 

standards as a means to carry out policy 

objectives or activities determined by 

the agencies and departments.’’ 

As discussed in the preamble to the 

December 2002 final rule, the 

equipment standard was drafted to 

include or exceed all existing 

government (FTA, ADA) and voluntary 

industry (e.g., SAE) standards.11

Readers who are interested in the source 

of the requirements in FMVSS No. 403 

are referred to that document. The 

agency included a table showing the 

source of each requirement in FMVSS 

No. 403. 

This document is not imposing new 

requirements, but is instead amending 

FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 to clarify the 

requirements of the standards and to 

provide further flexibility in 

compliance. As discussed in the 

December 2007 NPRM, the proposal to 

amend S4.1.5 of FMVSS No. 404 to 

reduce the required platform 

illumination levels to those specified by 

the ADA and FTA is consistent with the 

NTTAA.12

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 

requires Federal 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). Before promulgating a NHTSA 

rule for which a written statement is 

needed, section 205 of the UMRA 

generally requires the agency to identify 

and consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives and adopt the 

least costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative that achieves 

the objectives of the rule. The 

provisions of section 205 do not apply 

when they are inconsistent with 

applicable law. Moreover, section 205 

allows the agency to adopt an 

alternative other than the least costly, 

most cost-effective, or least burdensome 

alternative if the agency publishes with 

the final rule an explanation of why that 

alternative was not adopted. 

This final rule will not result in any 

expenditure by State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. Thus, 

this final rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 

the UMRA. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking 

action for the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. The agency 

has determined that implementation of 

this action will not have any significant 

impact on the quality of the human 

environment. 

Regulatory 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. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://www.regulations.gov. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 

Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Tires. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA hereby amends 49 CFR part 571 

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 571.3 is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘motor home’’ 

in paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 571.3 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Motor home means a multipurpose 

passenger vehicle with motive power 

that is designed to provide temporary 

residential accommodations, as 

evidenced by the presence of at least 

four of the following facilities: Cooking; 

refrigeration or ice box; self-contained 

toilet; heating and/or air conditioning; a 

potable water supply system including 

a faucet and a sink; and a separate 110– 

125 volt electrical power supply and/or 

propane. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 571.403 is amended by 

revising paragraphs S3, S6.1.4, S6.1.6, 

S6.4.7.1, S6.4.8.3(a), S6.7.4, S6.7.6.2, 

S6.10.2.4, S6.10.2.5, S6.10.2.6, 

S6.10.2.7, S7, S7.4.2, S7.5, S7.5.1, S7.6, 

S7.6.1, S7.6.2, S7.6.3, S7.7.2.4, S7.7.2.5, 

S7.7.4.3, S7.7.4.6, S7.8.3, and Figure 2; 

by removing paragraphs S7.5.2 and 

S7.5.3; and by adding new paragraphs 

S7.5.1.1 and S7.5.1.2 to read as follows: 

§ 571.403 Standard No. 403; Platform lift 

systems for motor vehicles. 

* * * * * 

S3 Application. This standard 

applies to platform lifts manufactured 

on and after April 1, 2005, that are 

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. 

* * * * * 

S6.1.4 The visual warning required 

by S6.1.2 and S6.1.3 must be a flashing 

red beacon as defined in SAE 

Recommended Practice J578 (1995) 

(incorporated by reference, see § 571.5), 

must have a minimum intensity of 20 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
20568 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

candela, a frequency from 1 to 2 Hz, and 

must be located within the interior of 

the vehicle such that it is visible from 

a point 914 mm (3 ft) above the center 

of the threshold area (see Figure 2) 

wherever the lift is installed and with 

any configuration of the vehicle interior. 

* * * * * 

S6.1.6 The intensity of the audible 

warning and visibility of the visual 

warning required by S6.1.2 and S6.1.3 is 

measured/observed at a location 914 

mm (3 ft) above the center of the 

platform threshold area. (See Figure 2). 

* * * * * 

S6.4.7.1 Impact I. Except for 

platform lifts designed so that platform 

loading takes place wholly over the 

vehicle floor, the lift must have a means 

of retaining the test device specified in 

S7.1.2. After impact, the test device 

must remain supported by the platform 

surface with none of the axles of its 

wheels extending beyond a plane that is 

perpendicular to the platform reference 

plane (Figure 1) and that is tangent to 

the edge of the platform that is traversed 

when entering or exiting the platform 

from the ground level loading position 

throughout its range of passenger 

operation, except as provided in 

S6.4.7.4. The lift is tested in accordance 

with S7.7 to determine compliance with 

this section. 

* * * * * 

S6.4.8.3 * * * 

(a) The front wheels of the test device 

specified in S7.1.2 from extending 

beyond a plane that is perpendicular to 

the platform reference plane (Figure 1) 

and that is tangent to the edge of the 

platform where the roll stop is located 

when the lift is at ground level loading 

position; and 

* * * * * 

S6.7.4 Except for the POWER 

function described in S6.7.2.1, the 

control system specified in S6.7.2 must 

prevent the simultaneous performance 

of more than one function. If an initial 

function is actuated, then one or more 

other functions are actuated while the 

initial function remains actuated, the 

platform must either continue in the 

direction dictated by the initial function 

or stop. Verification of this requirement 

is made throughout the lift operations 

specified in S7.9.3 through S7.9.8. 

* * * * * 

S6.7.6.2 Public use lifts. Public-use 

lift controls located within the portion 

of the passenger compartment specified 

in S5.3.4(a) of Standard No. 101 

(§ 571.101) must have characters that are 

illuminated in accordance with S5.3 of 

Standard No. 101 when the vehicle’s 

headlights are illuminated. Public-use 

lift controls located outside the portion 

of the passenger compartment specified 

in S5.3.4(a) of Standard No. 101 

(§ 571.101) must have means for 

illuminating the characters to make 

them visible under daylight and 

nighttime conditions. 

* * * * * 

S6.10.2.4 Movement of the platform 

up or down, throughout the range of 

passenger operation, unless the inner 

roll stop required to comply with S6.4.8 

is deployed. When the platform reaches 

a level where the inner roll stop is 

designed to fully deploy, the platform 

must stop unless the inner roll stop has 

fully deployed. Verification with this 

requirement is made by performing the 

test procedure specified in S7.6.1. 

S6.10.2.5 Movement of the platform 

up or down, throughout the range of 

passenger operation, when the highest 

point of the platform surface at the outer 

most platform edge is above a horizontal 

plane 75 mm (3 in) above the ground 

level loading position, unless the 

wheelchair retention device required to 

comply with S6.4.7 is deployed 

throughout the range of passenger 

operations. Verification of compliance is 

made using the test procedure specified 

in S7.5.1. 

S6.10.2.6 In the case of a platform 

lift that is equipped with an outer 

barrier, vertical deployment of the outer 

barrier when it is occupied by portions 

of the passenger’s body or mobility aid 

throughout the lift operation. When the 

platform stops, the vertical change in 

distance of the horizontal plane (passing 

through the point of contact between the 

wheelchair test device wheel(s) and the 

upper surface of the outer barrier) must 

not be greater than 13 mm (0.5 in). 

Verification of compliance with this 

requirement is made using the test 

procedure specified in S7.5.1. 

S6.10.2.7 Vertical deployment of the 

inner roll stop required to comply with 

S6.4.8 when it is occupied by portions 

of a passenger’s body or mobility aid 

throughout the lift operations. When the 

platform stops, the vertical change in 

distance of the horizontal plane (passing 

through the point of contact between the 

wheelchair test device wheel(s) and the 

upper surface of the inner roll stop or 

platform edge) must not be greater than 

13 mm (0.5 in). Verification of 

compliance with this requirement is 

made using the test procedure specified 

in S7.6.1. 

* * * * * 

S7 Test conditions and procedures. 

Each platform lift must be capable of 

meeting all of the tests specified in this 

standard, both separately, and in the 

sequence specified in this section. The 

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

through S7.12 are performed on a single 

lift and vehicle combination. The tests 

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

S7.7.1, S7.13, and S7.14 may be 

performed with the lift installed on a 

test jig rather than on a vehicle. Tests of 

requirements in S6.1 through S6.11 may 

be performed on a single lift and vehicle 

combination, except for the 

requirements of S6.5.3. Attachment 

hardware may be replaced if damaged 

by removal and reinstallation of the lift 

between a test jig and vehicle. 

* * * * * 

S7.4.2 During the threshold warning 

test, the wheelchair test device may be 

occupied by a human representative of 

a 5th percentile female meeting the 

requirements of FMVSS 208, S29.1(f) 

and S29.2. If present, the human subject 

is seated in the wheelchair test device 

with his or her feet supported by the 

wheelchair foot rests which are adjusted 

properly for length and in the down 

position (not elevated). The 

manufacturer shall select the option by 

the time it certifies the lift and may not 

thereafter select a different test option 

for the lift. Maneuver the lift platform to 

the vehicle floor level loading position. 

Using the wheelchair test device 

specified in S7.1.2, place one front 

wheel of the wheelchair test device on 

any portion of the threshold area 

defined in S4. Move the platform down 

until the alarm is actuated. Remove the 

test wheelchair wheel from the 

threshold area to deactivate the alarm. 

Measure the vertical distance between 

the platform and the threshold area and 

determine whether that distance is 

greater than 25 mm (1 in). 

* * * * * 

S7.5 Outer barrier non-deployment 

interlock and occupied outer barrier 

interlock test. 

S7.5.1 Determine compliance with 

both S6.10.2.5 and S6.10.2.6 by using 

the following single test procedure. 

S7.5.1.1 Place the test jig or vehicle 

on which the lift is installed on a flat, 

level, horizontal surface. Maneuver the 

platform to the ground level loading 

position. Using the lift control, move the 

lift upward until the point where the 

outer barrier fully deploys. Stop the 

platform at that point and measure the 

vertical distance between the highest 

point on the platform surface at the 

outer most edge and the ground to 

determine whether the distance is 

greater than 75 mm (3 in). Reposition 

the platform in the ground level loading 

position. Locate the wheelchair test 

device specified in S7.1.2 on the 

platform. If other wheelchair retention 

devices (e.g., a belt retention device) 

prevent the front wheel of the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20569 

wheelchair test device from accessing 

the outer barrier when on the platform, 

the wheelchair test device may be 

placed on the ground facing the 

entrance to the lift, with other retention 

devices configured so that they do not 

prevent lift operation (e.g., with any belt 

retention device fastened or buckled). 

S7.5.1.2 Place one front wheel of the 

wheelchair test device on any portion of 

the outer barrier. If the platform is too 

small to maneuver one front wheel on 

the outer barrier, two front wheels may 

be placed on the outer barrier. Note the 

distance between a horizontal plane 

(passing through the point of contact 

between the wheelchair test device 

wheel(s) and the upper surface of the 

outer barrier) and the ground. Using the 

lift control, move the platform up until 

it stops. Measure the vertical distance 

between the highest point of the 

platform surface at the outer most edge 

and the ground to determine 

compliance with S6.10.2.5. Measure the 

vertical change in distance of the 

horizontal plane (passing through the 

point of contact between the wheelchair 

test device wheel(s) and the upper 

surface of the outer barrier) to determine 

compliance with S6.10.2.6. 

S7.6 Inner roll stop non-deployment 

interlock and occupied inner roll stop 

interlock test. 

S7.6.1 Determine compliance with 

both S6.10.2.4 and S6.10.2.7 by using 

the single test procedure in S7.6.2 and 

S7.6.3. 

S7.6.2 Maneuver the platform to the 

vehicle floor level loading position, and 

position the wheelchair test device 

specified in S7.1.2 on the platform with 

the front of the wheelchair test device 

facing the vehicle. Using the lift control, 

move the platform down until the inner 

roll stop fully deploys. Stop the lift and 

note that location. 

S7.6.3 Reposition the platform at the 

vehicle floor level loading position. 

Place one front wheel of the wheelchair 

test device on the inner roll stop. If the 

platform is too small to maneuver one 

front wheel on the inner roll stop, two 

front wheels may be placed on the inner 

roll stop. Note the vertical distance 

between a horizontal plane (passing 

through the point of contact between the 

wheelchair test device wheel(s) and the 

upper surface of the inner roll stop) and 

the ground. Using the lift control, move 

the platform down until it stops. 

Compare the location of the platform 

relative to the location noted in S7.6.2 

to determine compliance with S6.10.2.4. 

Measure the vertical change in distance 

of the horizontal plane (passing through 

the point of contact between the 

wheelchair test device wheel(s) and the 

upper surface of the inner roll stop) to 

determine compliance with S6.10.2.7. 

* * * * * 

S7.7.2.4 An optional 50 kg (110 

pounds) of weight may be centered, 

evenly distributed, and secured in the 

seat of the wheelchair test device to 

assist in stabilizing the wheelchair test 

device during testing. The manufacturer 

shall select the option by the time it 

certifies the lift and may not thereafter 

select a different test option for the lift. 

Accelerate the test device onto the 

platform under its own power such that 

the test device impacts the wheelchair 

retention device at each speed and 

direction combination specified in 

S7.7.2.5. Terminate power to the 

wheelchair test device by means of the 

wheelchair controller after completion 

of the initial impact of any portion of 

the wheelchair test device with the 

wheelchair retention device. Note the 

position of the wheelchair test device 

following each impact to determine 

compliance with S6.4.7. If necessary, 

after each impact, adjust or replace the 

footrests to restore them to their original 

condition. 

S7.7.2.5 The test device is operated 

at the following speeds, in the following 

directions— 

(a) At a speed of not less than 

2.0 m/s (4.4 mph) and not more than 2.1 

m/s (4.7 mph) in the forward direction. 

(b) At a speed of not less than 

1.75 m/s (3.9 mph) and not more than 

1.85 m/s (4.1 mph) in the rearward 

direction. 

* * * * * 

S7.7.4.3 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 more 

than 90 mm ±10 mm (3.5 in ±0.4 in) 

above the ground level loading position 

and more 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. 

* * * * * 

S7.7.4.6 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 more 

than 90 mm ±10 mm (3.5 in ±0.4 in) 

above the ground level loading position 

and more than 38 mm ±10 mm (1.5 in 

±0.4 in) below the vehicle floor loading 

position. Repeat this sequence at 38 mm 

±10 mm (1.5 in ±0.4 in) below the 

vehicle floor level loading position. 

* * * * * 

S7.8.3 An optional 50 kg (110 

pounds) of weight may be centered, 

evenly distributed, and secured in the 

seat of the wheelchair test device to 

assist in stabilizing the wheelchair test 

device during testing. The manufacturer 

shall select the option by the time it 

certifies the lift and may not thereafter 

select a different test option for the lift. 

Accelerate the test device onto the 

platform such that it impacts the inner 

roll stop at a speed of not less than 1.5 

m/s (3.4 mph) and not more than 

1.6 m/s (3.6 mph). Terminate power to 

the wheelchair test device by means of 

the wheelchair controller after 

completion of the initial impact of any 

portion of the wheelchair test device 

with the inner roll stop. Determine 

compliance with S6.4.8.3(a). 

* * * * * 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
20570 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULESER05AP12.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20571 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 571.404 is amended by 

revising paragraphs S3 and 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 manufactured 

on and after July 1, 2005, that are 

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 be 

provided with a light or set of lights that 

provide at least 22 lm/m2 or 22 Lux (2 

lm/ft2 or 2 foot-candles) of illumination 

on all portions of the surface of the 

platform when the platform is at the 

vehicle floor level. Additionally, a light 

or set of lights must provide at least 11 

lm/m2 or 11 Lux (1 lm/ft2 or 1 footcandle) of illumination on all portions 

of the surface of the platform and all 

portions of the surface of the passengerunloading ramp at ground level. In 

preparation for taking illumination 

measurements, operate the vehicle 

engine by idling or driving the test 

vehicle, with the vehicle’s HVAC 

system turned off, for a minimum of 20 

minutes, after which the engine is 

turned off. Illumination measurements 

are then recorded no later than 10 

minutes after the time the engine is 

turned off, with the vehicle in a location 

where there is no apparent ambient 

light, and with the sensing element of 

the measuring device within 50 mm (2 

inches) of the platform surface being 

measured. 

* * * * * 

Issued on: March 28, 2012. 

David L. Strickland, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8138 Filed 4–4–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 111207737–2141–02] 

RIN 0648–XB119 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by 

Catcher Vessels Using Hook-and-Line 

Gear in the Western Regulatory Area of 

the Gulf of Alaska 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed 

fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels 

(CVs) using hook-and-line gear in the 

Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf of 

Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary 

to prevent exceeding the A season 

allowance of the 2012 Pacific cod total 

allowable catch apportioned to CVs 

using hook-and-line gear in the Western 

Regulatory Area of the GOA. 

DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local 

time (A.l.t.), April 2, 2012, through 1200 

hrs, A.l.t., September 1, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Obren Davis, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

manages the groundfish fishery in the 

GOA exclusive economic zone 

according to the Fishery Management 

Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of 

Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

under authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act. Regulations governing 

fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance 

with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 

CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. 

Regulations governing sideboard 

protections for GOA groundfish 

fisheries appear at subpart B of 50 CFR 

part 680. 

The A season allowance of the 2012 

Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) 

apportioned to CVs using hook-and-line 

gear in the Western Regulatory Area of 

the GOA is 145 metric tons (mt), as 

established by the final 2012 and 2013 

harvest specifications for groundfish of 

the GOA (77 FR 15194, March 14, 2012). 

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), 

the Administrator, Alaska Region, 

NMFS (Regional Administrator) has 

determined that the A season allowance 

of the 2012 Pacific cod TAC 

apportioned to CVs using hook-and-line 

gear in the Western Regulatory Area of 

the GOA will soon be reached. 

Therefore, the Regional Administrator is 

establishing a directed fishing 

allowance of 130 mt, and is setting aside 

the remaining 15 mt as bycatch to 

support other anticipated groundfish 

fisheries. In accordance with 

§ 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional 

Administrator finds that this directed 

fishing allowance has been reached. 

Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting 

directed fishing for Pacific cod by CVs 

using hook-and-line gear in the Western 

Regulatory Area of the GOA. After the 

effective date of this closure the 

maximum retainable amounts at 

§ 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time 

during a trip. 

Classification 

This action responds to the best 

available information recently obtained 

from the fishery. The Acting Assistant 

Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA 

(AA), finds good cause to waive the 

requirement to provide prior notice and 

opportunity for public comment 

pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is 

impracticable and contrary to the public 

interest. This requirement is 

impracticable and contrary to the public 

interest as it would prevent NMFS from 

responding to the most recent fisheries 

data in a timely fashion and would 

delay the closure of directed fishing for 

Pacific cod by CVs using hook-and-line 

gear in the Western Regulatory Area of 

the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish 

a notice providing time for public 

comment because the most recent, 

relevant data only became available as 

of March 30, 2012. 

The AA also finds good cause to 

waive the 30-day delay in the effective 

date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(3). This finding is based upon 

the reasons provided above for waiver of 

prior notice and opportunity for public 

comment. 

This action is required by § 679.20 

and is exempt from review under 

Executive Order 12866. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: April 2, 2012. 

Emily H. Menashes, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8222 Filed 4–2–12; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES