72326 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 244 / Thursday, December 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

• Fax: 202–501–4067. 

• Mail: General Services 

Administration, Regulatory Secretariat 

(VIR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035, 

ATTN: Diedra Wingate, Washington, DC 

20405. 

Instructions: Please submit comments 

only and cite FAR case 2006–024 in all 

correspondence related to this case. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal and/or business confidential 

information provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Mr. 

Edward Chambers, Procurement 

Analyst, at (202) 501–3221 for 

clarification of content. For information 

pertaining to status or publication 

schedules, contact the FAR Secretariat 

at (202) 501–4755. Please cite FAR case 

2006–024. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

The travel cost principle at FAR 

31.205–46(b) currently limits allowable 

contractor airfare costs to ‘‘the lowest 

customary standard, coach, or 

equivalent airfare offered during normal 

business hours.’’ The Councils are 

aware that this limitation is being 

interpreted inconsistently, either as 

lowest coach fare available to the 

contractor or lowest coach fare available 

to the general public, and these 

inconsistent interpretations can lead to 

confusion regarding what costs are 

allowable. 

The Councils agreed that the current 

language at FAR 31.205–46(b) does not 

promote consistency in the application 

of the cost principle and that, 

accordingly, the cost principle requires 

clarification. The Councils considered 

three alternative approaches to revising 

the cost principle: 

1. Do nothing, leaving FAR 31.205–46 

unchanged; 

2. Amend FAR 31.205–46(b) to 

explicitly state that allowable contractor 

airfare costs are limited to the lowest 

standard or coach fare available to the 

general public; or 

3. Amend FAR 31.205–46(b) to 

explicitly state that allowable contractor 

airfare costs are limited to the lowest 

standard or coach fare available to the 

contractor. 

With regard to the first option, the 

Councils do not believe that the cost 

principle can be left unchanged based 

on the different interpretations of which 

the Councils have become aware. The 

Councils also believe that establishing 

the lowest coach fare available to the 

general public as the benchmark for cost 

allowability is not a feasible option in 

practice. Under such a standard, 

contractors could potentially be 

required to continuously monitor a 

fluctuating fare market to determine 

what was the lowest fare available on a 

given day. Likewise, Government 

auditors could not reasonably recreate 

the competitive fare market for each 

instance of a contractor’s travel in 

determining compliance with the cost 

principle. 

Accordingly, the Councils believe that 

the reasonable standard to apply in 

determining the allowability of airfares 

is the lowest coach fare available to the 

contractor. It is not prudent to allow the 

costs of the lowest coach fares available 

to the general public when contractors 

have obtained lower fares as a result of 

direct negotiation. 

Furthermore, the Councils believe 

that the cost principle should be 

clarified to omit the term ‘‘standard’’

from the description of the classes of 

allowable airfares since that term does 

not describe actual classes of airline 

service. The Councils believe that 

‘‘customary coach, or equivalent’’ more 

accurately describes the classes of 

service for which the cost will be 

considered allowable. 

This is not a significant regulatory 

action and, therefore, was not subject to 

review under Section 6(b) of Executive 

Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and 

Review, dated September 30, 1993. This 

rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 

804. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Councils do not expect this 

proposed rule to have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities within the 

meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because most 

contracts awarded to small entities use 

simplified acquisition procedures or are 

awarded on a competitive, fixed-price 

basis, and do not require application of 

the cost principles and procedures 

discussed in this rule. An Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has, 

therefore, not been performed. We invite 

comments from small businesses and 

other interested parties. The Councils 

will consider comments from small 

entities concerning the affected FAR 

Part 31 in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. 

Interested parties must submit such 

comments separately and should cite 5 

U.S.C. 601, et seq. (FAR case 2006–024), 

in correspondence. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act does 

not apply because the proposed changes 

to the FAR do not impose information 

collection requirements that require the 

approval of the Office of Management 

and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et 

seq. 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 31 

Government procurement. 

Dated: December 10, 2007. 

Al Matera, 

Director, Office of Acquisition Policy. 

Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA 

propose amending 48 CFR part 31 as set 

forth below: 

PART 31—CONTRACT COST 

PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES 

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

part 31 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. 

chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c). 

2. Amend section 31.205-46 by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

31.205–46 Travel costs. 

* * * * * 

(b) Airfare costs, in excess of the 

lowest priced coach class, or equivalent, 

airfare available to the contractor during 

normal business hours are unallowable 

except when such accommodations 

require circuitous routing, require travel 

during unreasonable hours, excessively 

prolong travel, result in increased cost 

that would offset transportation savings, 

are not reasonably adequate for the 

physical or medical needs of the 

traveler, or are not reasonably available 

to meet mission requirements. However, 

in order for airfare costs in excess of the 

above airfare to be allowable, the 

applicable condition(s) set forth above 

must be documented and justified. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E7–24730 Filed 12–19–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–S 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2007–0052] 

RIN 2127–AJ93 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Platform Lifts for Motor 

Vehicles; Platform Lift Installations in 

Motor Vehicles 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM); grant in part, denial in part of 

petitions for rulemaking. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 244 / Thursday, December 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 72327 

1Pub. L. 101–336, 42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq. The 

ADA directed the DOT to issue regulations to 

implement the transportation vehicle provisions 

that pertain to vehicles used by the public. Titles 

II and III of the ADA set specific requirements for 

vehicles purchased by municipalities for use in 

fixed route bus systems and vehicles purchased by 

private entities for use in public transportation to 

provide a level of accessibility and usability for 

individuals with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. 12204. 

SUMMARY: This document responds to 

six petitions for rulemaking to amend 

the Federal motor vehicle safety 

standards on platform lift systems for 

motor vehicles. The purpose of these 

standards is to prevent injuries and 

fatalities during lift operation. Pursuant 

to the agency’s partial grant of the 

petitions, NHTSA proposes to amend 

the platform lift standards to revise the 

lighting requirements for lift controls; 

the location, performance requirements, 

and test specifications for threshold 

warning signals; the specifications for 

the wheelchair test device; the 

wheelchair retention device and inner 

roll stop tests; and the lighting 

requirements for public use lifts. 

In addition, NHTSA denies a request 

to amend the wheelchair test device 

specifications to include anti-tipping 

devices and proposes several technical 

changes designed to further clarify these 

standards. Finally, this notice discusses 

a November 3, 2005, interpretation 

clarifying specific components of the 

threshold warning signal test specified 

in one of the standards. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 19, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

to the docket number identified in the 

heading of this document by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

M–30, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building, Ground 

Floor, Rm. W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

Regardless of how you submit your 

comments, you should mention the 

docket number of this document. 

You may call the Docket Management 

Facility at 202–366–9826. 

Instructions: For detailed instructions 

on submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the Public Participation heading of 

the Supplementary Information section 

of this document. Note that all 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy 

Act heading under Rulemaking 

Analyses and Notices. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical and policy issues, you may 

contact Mr. William Evans, Office of 

Crash Avoidance Safety Standards at 

(telephone: 202–366–2272) (Fax: 202–

493–2990). For legal issues, you may 

contact Mr. Edward Glancy, Office of 

Chief Counsel (Telephone: 202–366–

2992) (Fax: 202–366–3820). You may 

send mail to these officials at the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., West Building, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Petitions for Rulemaking 

A. Amend the Control Panel Switch 

Requirements in S6.7.6.2 of FMVSS No. 

403 So That Lift Controls in a Location 

Remote From the Driver’s Seating 

Position Are Not Subject to the 

Illumination Requirements in S5.3 of 

FMVSS No. 101 

B. Amend the Threshold Warning Signal 

Requirements in S6.1.4 of FMVSS No. 

403 To Permit Warning Lights To Be 

Mounted in a Location Clearly Visible in 

Reference to the Lift 

C. Amend the Threshold Warning Signal 

Requirements in S6.1.4 and S6.1.6 of 

FMVSS No. 403 To Clarify the Units of 

Measurement and Minimum Required 

Luminance at the Designated 

Measurement Point 

D. Amend the Threshold Warning Test in 

S7.4 of FMVSS No. 403 To Include a 

Performance Test for Warning Systems 

Using Infrared and Other Sensor 

Technologies 

E. Amend the Wheelchair Test Device 

Specification in S7.1.2 of FMVSS No. 

403 To Include Anti-Tip Devices 

F. Amend the Wheelchair Retention Impact 

Test Specifications in S7.7 of FMVSS 

No. 403 To Permit Use of a Loaded 

Wheelchair Test Device 

G. Amend the Requirements for Platform 

Lighting on Public Lifts in S4.1.5 of 

FMVSS No. 404 To Reduce the 

Illumination Levels to Those Specified 

by the ADA and FTA 

III. Technical Changes 

A. Amend S7 of FMVSS No. 403 To 

Require Performance of the Handrail 

Test in S7.12 on a Lift/Vehicle 

Combination Rather Than on a Test Jig 

B. Correct Figure 2 in FMVSS No. 403 To 

Make It Consistent With the Threshold 

Beacon Warning Requirements in S6.1.6 

C. Clarify the Control Panel Switch 

Requirements in S6.7.4 of FMVSS No. 

403 

D. Amend the Interlock Requirements and 

Test Procedures in S6.10.2.4, S6.10.2.5, 

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

FMVSS No. 403 

IV. November 3, 2005 Interpretation 

V. Proposed Compliance Date 

VI. Public Participation 

VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

I. Background 

December 27, 2002 Final Rule 

On December 27, 2002, the agency 

published in the Federal Register a final 

rule establishing FMVSS No. 403, 

Platform lift systems for motor vehicles, 

and FMVSS No. 404, Platform lift 

installations in motor vehicles (67 FR 

79416). These two new standards 

provide practicable, performance-based 

requirements and compliance 

procedures for the regulations 

promulgated by the DOT under the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).1

FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 provide that 

only lift systems and vehicles 

manufactured with lift systems that 

comply with objective safety 

requirements may be placed in service. 

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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
72328 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 244 / Thursday, December 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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

meeting all applicable public use lift 

requirements set forth in FMVSS No. 

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

lift on each lift-equipped vehicle with a 

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

be certified to either the public use or 

private use lift requirements set forth in 

FMVSS No. 403. Stricter requirements 

apply to vehicles with public use lifts 

than to vehicles with private use lifts, as 

public use lifts generally are subject to 

more stress and cyclic loading and will 

be used by more numerous and varied 

populations. 

As required by the ADA, FMVSS Nos. 

403 and 404 are consistent with the 

Architectural and Transportation 

Barriers Compliance Board (ATBCB) 

guidelines published on September 6, 

1991 (56 FR 45530). In order to provide 

manufacturers sufficient time to meet 

any new requirements established in 

FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404, the agency 

provided a two-year lead-time, which 

scheduled the standards to become 

effective on December 27, 2004. 

October 1, 2004 Final Rule 

On October 1, 2004, in response to 

petitions for reconsideration of its 

December 27, 2002 final rule, the agency 

published a final rule in the Federal 

Register revising FMVSS Nos. 403 and 

404. Among the changes made by the 

October 1, 2004 final rule, the agency 

amended the requirements for lighting 

on public use lifts, edge guard 

requirements, and the wheelchair test 

device specifications (69 FR 58843). 

On December 23, 2004, the agency 

published an interim final rule in the 

Federal Register delaying the 

compliance date until April 1, 2005 for 

FMVSS No. 403 and July 1, 2005 for 

FMVSS No. 404 (69 FR 76865). On July 

15, 2005, the agency published in the 

Federal Register a denial of petitions for 

reconsideration of its October 1, 2004 

final rule (70 FR 40917). The July 15, 

2005 document did not address the 

petitions received from the Blue Bird 

Body Company (Blue Bird), the School 

Bus Manufacturers Technical Council 

(SBMTC), which represents school bus 

manufacturers (including Blue Bird), 

and the Manufacturers Council of Small 

School Buses (MCSSB), an affiliate of 

the National Truck Equipment 

Association formed to represent the 

interest of small manufacturers, 

requesting changes in the required level 

of lighting on public use lift platforms, 

as that issue was outside the scope of 

the October 2004 final rule. The notice 

stated that the agency would treat the 

documents as petitions for rulemaking 

and respond in a separate notice. 

Today’s notice addresses the issue 

raised by the Blue Bird, SBMTC and 

MCSSB petitions. 

Petitions for Rulemaking 

Since that time, NHTSA received 

three additional petitions for 

rulemaking seeking revisions to FMVSS 

Nos. 403 and 404. Specifically, we 

received petitions from Maxon Lift 

Corporation (Maxon), Ricon Corporation 

(Ricon) and the Lift–U Division of 

Hogan Manufacturing, Inc. (LIFT–U), all 

of which are platform lift 

manufacturers. The petitioners 

requested that the agency amend: (A) 

The control panel switch requirements 

in S6.7.6.2 of FMVSS No. 403 so that lift 

controls in locations remote from the 

driver’s seating position are not subject 

to the illumination requirements in S5.3 

of FMVSS No. 101; (B) the threshold 

warning signal requirements in S6.1.4 of 

FMVSS No. 403 to permit warning 

lights to be mounted in a location 

clearly visible in reference to the lift; (C) 

the threshold warning signal 

requirements in S6.1.4 and S6.1.6 of 

FMVSS No. 403 to clarify the units of 

measurement and minimum required 

luminance at the designated 

measurement point; (D) the threshold 

warning test in S7.4 of FMVSS No. 403 

to include a performance test for 

warning systems using infrared and 

other sensor technologies; (E) the 

wheelchair test device specification in 

S7.1.2 of FMVSS No. 403 to include 

anti-tip devices; (F) the wheelchair 

retention device impact test 

specifications in S7.7 of FMVSS No. 403 

to permit use of a loaded wheelchair test 

device; and (G) the requirements for 

platform lighting on public use lifts in 

S4.1.5 of FMVSS No. 404 to reduce the 

required illumination levels to those 

specified by the ADA and FTA. The 

issues raised by petitioners are 

addressed below in Section II of this 

notice. 

Technical Changes 

In Section III of this notice, the agency 

proposes additional technical changes 

to FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 designed to 

further clarify these standards, 

including revisions to: (A) S7 of FMVSS 

No. 403 to require performance of the 

handrail test in S7.12 on a lift/vehicle 

combination rather than on a test jig; (B) 

Figure 2 in FMVSS No. 403 to make it 

consistent with the threshold beacon 

warning requirements in S6.1.6; (C) the 

control panel switch requirements in 

S6.7.4 of FMVSS No. 403; and (D) the 

Interlock Requirements and Test 

Procedures in S6.10.2.4, S6.10.2.5, 

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

FMVSS No. 403. 

November 3, 2005 Interpretation of S7.4 

of FMVSS No. 403 

In Section IV of this notice, the 

agency discusses an interpretation of 

S7.4 of FMVSS No. 403, dated 

November 3, 2005, issued to Maxon. 

The November 3 interpretation clarified 

specific procedures that should be 

performed as part of the threshold 

warning signal test. Although the 

agency has decided against revising the 

language of S7.4, we include a 

discussion of the matter in this notice to 

ensure wide-spread dissemination of its 

interpretation. 

II. Petitions for Rulemaking 

A. Amend the Control Panel Switch 

Requirements in S6.7.6.2 of FMVSS No. 

403 So That Lift Controls in a Location 

Remote From the Driver’s Seating 

Position Are Not Subject to the 

Illumination Requirements in S5.3 of 

FMVSS No. 101 

A petition for rulemaking was 

received from Maxon, in which it 

requested that the agency revise the 

control panel switch requirements in 

S6.7.6.2 of FMVSS No. 403 so that lift 

controls located outside the immediate 

vicinity of the driver’s seating position 

are not subject to the illumination 

requirements in S5.3 of FMVSS No. 101. 

S6.7.6.2 requires that public use lifts 

have characters illuminated in 

accordance with S5.3 of FMVSS No. 101 

when the vehicle’s headlights are 

illuminated. S5.3.2.2(a)–(b) of FMVSS 

No. 101 requires that controls provide 

adjustable illumination to provide at 

least two levels of brightness, one of 

which is barely discernible to a driver 

who has adapted to dark ambient 

roadway conditions. 

Maxon stated that it is not reasonable 

for the agency to apply the illumination 

requirements in S5.3 of FMVSS 101 to 

lift controls on public use lifts that are 

not located near the driver’s seat. Maxon 

stated that, even in dark ambient road 

conditions, when a driver gets up from 

his seat to be near the lift during 

operation, the interior lights of the 

vehicle likely will be on and will ruin 

the driver’s dark adaptation. The 

petition noted that, even if the vehicle’s 

interior lights are off, the platform lights 

required by FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 

are bright enough to ruin a driver’s dark 

adaptation. 

Agency’s response: The agency 

tentatively agrees with Maxon. The 

purpose of applying the illumination 

requirements in S5.3 of FMVSS No. 101 

to public use lifts is to prevent 

illuminated lift controls located in the 

area of the driver’s seat from distracting 

a driver who has adapted to dark 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 244 / Thursday, December 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 72329 

ambient roadway conditions. Although 

the current language in S6.7.6.2 of 

FMVSS No. 403 does not address the 

issue of control location, the agency 

never intended the more stringent 

illumination requirements applicable to 

dashboard controls and displays to 

apply to lift controls not located in the 

vicinity of the driver. Accordingly, we 

propose amending S6.7.6.2 to clarify 

that only public use lift controls located 

within the portion of the passenger 

compartment specified in S5.3.4(a) of 

FMVSS No. 101 (i.e., the portion of the 

passenger compartment which is 

forward of a transverse vertical plane 

110 mm rearward of the manikin ‘‘H’’

point with the driver’s seat in its 

rearmost driving position) must have 

characters that are illuminated in 

accordance with S5.3 of that standard, 

when the vehicle’s headlights are 

illuminated. However, to prevent errors 

in operation during dark conditions, 

NHTSA believes that lift controls 

located away from the driver’s seat 

should be illuminated in some fashion. 

We therefore are proposing to amend 

S6.7.6.2 also to require that lift controls 

located outside the portion of the 

passenger compartment specified in 

S5.3.4(a) of FMVSS No. 101 must have 

a means for illuminating the characters 

to make them visible under daylight and 

nighttime conditions. 

B. Amend the Threshold Warning Signal 

Requirements in S6.1.4 of FMVSS No. 

403 To Permit Warning Lights To Be 

Mounted in a Location Clearly Visible in 

Reference to the Lift 

Maxon petitioned the agency also to 

amend the threshold warning signal 

location requirements in S6.1.4 of 

FMVSS No. 403. S6.1.4 requires, in part, 

that the visual warning signal be 

installed such that it does not require 

more than a ± 15 degree side-to-side 

head rotation as viewed by a passenger 

in a wheelchair backing onto the 

platform from the interior of the vehicle. 

In its petition, Maxon stated that this 

location requirement does not indicate 

whether NHTSA intends a passenger to 

use peripheral vision to satisfy the 

standard. If not, it took the position that 

warning signals would need to be 

installed on the opposite side of the bus. 

The visibility of the warning signals in 

that location might be blocked by a 

chair, person or structure within the 

bus, and wiring associated with the 

lights would need protection from 

cutting and other damage. Maxon 

requested that the warning signal 

requirements of S6.1.4 be amended to 

permit warning lights to be mounted in 

a location clearly visible in reference to 

the lift, which presumably would result 

in more options for locating the warning 

signal where passengers will see it. 

Agency response: The location 

requirements for a threshold warning 

signal in S6.1.4 of FMVSS No. 403 were 

adopted from Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) J2093, Design 

Considerations For Wheelchair Lifts For 

Entry To or Exit From a Personally 

Licensed Vehicle (SAE J2093), which 

provides that ‘‘the visual warning shall 

be located such that it can be seen by 

a person backing onto the lift wherever 

the lift is installed.’’ SAE J2093 requires 

that an unobstructed line-of sight 

pathway must exist between the 

warning signal and the general area 

where a passenger transitions from the 

vehicle floor to the lift platform. The 

SAE requirement permits the warning 

signal to be located on the vehicle or the 

lift, provided a clear line-of-sight exists. 

In promulgating S6.1.4, NHTSA 

modified SAE J2093 to include 

additional language designed to address 

the safety needs of persons in powered 

wheelchairs, who often have limited 

side-to-side head movement, and of 

passengers who transverse onto the lift 

platform in a forward direction. 

Specifically, S6.1.4 includes a 

requirement not found in SAE J2093 

that the warning signal be installed such 

that it does not require more than ± 15 

degrees side-to-side head rotation as 

viewed by a passenger backing onto the 

platform from the interior of the vehicle 

and contains a similar head rotation 

limitation applicable to passengers 

traveling forward onto the platform. 

However, S6.1.4 does not specify the 

position from which the warning signal 

must be viewed; whether the 

measurement is a line-of-sight 

measurement or whether peripheral 

vision may be used; or a reference point 

for determining the ± 15 degrees side-toside head rotation. Consequently, the 

agency acknowledges that the language 

added by NHTSA to SAE J2093 created 

ambiguity in the warning signal location 

requirement. To eliminate this 

ambiguity, we propose amending S6.1.4 

to revert to language similar to that 

which appears in SAE J2093. 

The agency would prefer to define the 

threshold warning signal requirement 

generally, rather than in specific 

geographic terms, due to the many 

variables that may affect a passenger’s 

line-of-sight, including variation in 

vehicle type, lift design and a 

passenger’s visual acuity. Even a clear 

line-of-sight between a passenger 

backing onto the lift and a warning 

signal does not ensure that a passenger 

will see the signal, as in the case of a 

passenger looking away from the signal 

or who has a visual impairment may not 

see it. For this reason, S6.1.3 requires 

public use lifts to have both visual and 

audible warnings. Nevertheless, we 

believe that specifying a point in S6.1.4 

from which the warning signal must be 

viewed will eliminate confusion 

stemming from the language ‘‘as viewed 

by a passenger backing onto the 

platform from the interior of the 

vehicle.’’ Accordingly, we propose to 

amend S6.1.4 also to provide that the 

point from which the warning signal 

must be visible will be 914 mm (3 ft) 

above the center of the threshold area as 

shown in Figure 2 of that Standard. The 

proposed revision will allow the 

threshold warning beacon to be 

mounted on the vehicle or the interior 

portion of the lift as long as there is a 

clear line-of-sight between the beacon 

and the point 914 mm (3 ft) above the 

center of the threshold warning area. 

C. Amend the Threshold Warning Signal 

Requirements in S6.1.4 and S6.1.6 of 

FMVSS No. 403 To Clarify the Units of 

Measurement and Minimum Required 

Luminance at the Designated 

Measurement Point 

Ricon also petitioned the agency to 

amend the threshold warning signal 

requirements in S6.1.4 and S6.1.6. 

S6.1.4 provides, among other things, 

that the visual warning required by 

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

beacon with a minimum intensity of 20 

candela. S6.1.6 provides that the 

intensity of the visual warning required 

by S6.1.4 is measured at the location 

914 mm (3ft) above the center of 

platform threshold area. Ricon stated in 

its petition that, after discussions with 

industry suppliers of lighting 

equipment, it has confirmed that 

‘‘candela’’ is a measurement of output at 

the source, not of output measured a 

specified distance from the source. 

Ricon suggested that the correct 

terminology for the measurement of 

luminous intensity at a specified 

distance from the source either should 

be ‘‘lux’’ or ‘‘foot-candles.’’ On the basis 

of its discussions with industry 

suppliers and its own analysis of what 

it characterized as the ‘‘worst-case 

condition (i.e., Public Use—Motor 

Coach applications),’’ Ricon suggested 

also that NHTSA replace the ‘‘minimum 

intensity of 20 candelas’’ language in 

S6.1.4 with ‘‘minimum intensity of 3.0 

Lux (.27 foot candles).’’ According to 

the petitioner, this change would negate 

the need for any change in the language 

of S6.1.6. 

Agency response: We agree with 

Ricon that the requirement in S6.1.4 of 

a beacon with a minimum intensity of 

20 candelas provides a measurement of 

minimum luminous intensity at the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
72330 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 244 / Thursday, December 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

source and that foot-candles or Lux (lm/ 

ft2) would be the correct unit of 

measurement of the density of light that 

falls on a surface. As discussed above, 

NHTSA originally based its threshold 

warning signal requirements on SAE 

J2093, which provides in part that a 

visual threshold warning signal ‘‘shall 

be a flashing red beacon of a minimum 

21 candlepower (candlepower is 

luminous intensity expressed in 

candelas) and be located such that it can 

be seen by a person backing onto the lift 

wherever the lift is installed.’’ Unlike 

S6.1.6, the SAE requirement does not 

specify a measurement point. Thus, 

when the agency adopted FMVSS No. 

403, it did not include in S6.1.4 or 

S6.1.6 the minimum criteria necessary 

to measure the illuminance or light 

density required at the measurement 

point specified in S6.1.6. 

The location of a warning beacon, its 

distance from the measurement point 

and the illuminance level necessary at 

the measurement point to alert 

passengers all are factors that vary from 

vehicle to vehicle. Consequently, it 

would be quite difficult for us to 

identify in S6.1.6 a universally 

applicable measuring point from which 

to assess a beacon’s compliance with the 

20 candela minimum intensity 

requirement in S6.1.4. Accordingly, to 

eliminate the problem of specifying 

appropriate units and an acceptable 

minimum illuminance at the 

measurement point, the agency 

proposes to amend S6.1.6 to bring the 

requirement in line with SAE J2093, the 

standard on which it was based. 

Specifically, to ensure that passengers 

recognize when a warning beacon is 

flashing, S6.4.2 would continue to 

require that the beacon have a minimum 

luminous intensity of 20 candelas. 

However, the agency proposes to 

eliminate from S6.1.6 the current 

measurement at the measurement point 

requirement and, instead, replace it 

with a more general visibility 

requirement, consistent with our 

proposed revision to S6.1.4, discussed 

above in Section II. B. of this Notice, 

entitled Amend the Threshold Warning 

Signal Requirements in S6.1.4 of FMVSS 

No. 403 To Permit Warning Lights To Be 

Mounted In a Location Clearly Visible In 

Reference To the Lift. Specifically, the 

agency proposes new language for 

S6.1.4 providing that the intensity of the 

audible warning and the visibility of the 

visual warning required by S6.1.2 and 

S6.1.3 are measured/observed at a 

location 914 mm (3 ft) above the center 

of the platform threshold area detailed 

in Figure 2 of the standard. 

D. Amend the Threshold Warning Test 

in S7.4 of FMVSS No. 403 To Include 

a Performance Test for Warning Systems 

Using Infrared and Other Sensor 

Technologies 

In its petition, LIFT–U requests that 

we amend the specifications for the 

threshold warning signal test to include 

a performance test for threshold sensors 

that do not detect weight. S7.4.2 details 

the performance test for demonstrating 

compliance with S6.1.2 and S6.1.3. It 

specifies the use of the unloaded power 

wheelchair test device specified in 

S7.1.2. The test procedure consists of 

maneuvering one front wheel of the 

unloaded test device onto any portion of 

the threshold area defined in S4 of 

FMVSS 403 while the lift platform is at 

the vehicle floor level loading position. 

The platform then is moved down until 

the alarm is actuated. The wheel of the 

test device is removed from the 

threshold area to deactivate the alarm 

and the vertical distance between the 

platform and the threshold area is 

measured to determine whether the 

distance is greater than 25 mm (1 in). 

LIFT–U acknowledged that the test 

prescribed in S7.4, which calls for use 

of an unoccupied test device, is effective 

for validating sensor technologies that 

sense weight, such as pressure sensitive 

mats. However, the petitioner stated that 

the unoccupied test device may not be 

suitable for testing the compliance of 

threshold warning technologies that do 

not use weight as a detection criterion, 

such as infrared and other sensors. 

LIFT–U pointed out that S6.1 does not 

specify use of a particular threshold 

warning system required to detect a 

passenger in the threshold area of a lift 

and that there are many sensor 

technologies that are effective for 

detecting people in safety applications. 

LIFT–U stated also that NHTSA has 

made clear in its commentary and 

letters of interpretation relating to 

FMVSS 403 that the purpose the 

threshold warning required by S6.1 is to 

detect and alert a passenger entering the 

threshold area when the platform lift is 

not in proper position. Because its 

infrared technology accomplishes the 

purpose of S6.1, LIFT–U requested that 

we revise S7.4 to include a performance 

test that would permit warning systems 

with sensors that do not detect weight 

to demonstrate compliance with S6.1.2 

and S6.1.3. Specifically, the petitioner 

suggested that NHTSA adopt a test that 

is substantially identical to the current 

performance requirement with the 

addition of an occupant in the 

wheelchair test device. 

Agency Response: The agency grants 

LIFT–U’s petition and is proposing to 

revise S7.4 to include a performance test 

to enable threshold warning systems 

using infrared and other technologies to 

demonstrate compliance with S6.1 and 

S6.3. When NHTSA adopted S7.4, 

infrared-based sensor systems for 

platform lifts did not exist. However, as 

currently drafted, S7.4 does not limit 

the technologies permitted under the 

agency’s threshold-warning systems 

requirement only to pressure sensitive 

mats. Instead, NHTSA originally 

mandated use of the unoccupied 

wheelchair test device for the threshold 

warning performance test because its 

downward force triggers weight-based 

warning systems and its structure 

triggers light beam-based warning 

systems. Use of the wheelchair test 

device also reduces the need for 

additional test fixtures and represents 

the most common mobility device 

accommodated by platform lifts. 

Additionally, when one front wheel of 

the unloaded test device is placed on 

the platform, it exerts a relatively low 

downward force (approximately 11.3 kg 

(25 pounds)) and has a contact area/ 

foot-print sufficient to assure that the 

warning system will detect a passenger 

using a wheelchair, cane or walker, or 

even a small child without a mobility 

aid, who may be preparing to board the 

platform from the vehicle floor. 

While S7.4 is broad enough to 

encompass more than just weight-based 

warning systems, we do not want to 

limit the technologies that may be used 

to meet this performance standard. Use 

of warning systems with infrared and 

other sensor technologies to comply 

with S6.1.2 and S6.1.3 is consistent 

with the purpose of the threshold 

warning requirements to protect 

passengers from moving onto a lift 

platform from the interior of a vehicle 

when it is not safe to do so. NHTSA 

therefore is proposing to amend the test 

procedure in S7.4 to allow a human 

representative of a 5th percentile 

female, as specified in FMVSS No. 208, 

S29.1(f) and S29.2, to be present in the 

wheelchair test device during the 

threshold warning test. We selected the 

5th percentile female as it is 

representative of the smallest human 

subject that properly can occupy the 

wheelchair test device, which is an 

adult size powered wheelchair. A 5th 

percentile female seated in the 

wheelchair test device increases from 

approximately 11.3 kg (25 pounds) to 

approximately 18.1 kg (40 pounds) the 

force exerted by the front wheel of the 

test device on the lift platform. 

However, NHTSA does not believe that 

this increase in weight will detract from 

the effectiveness of the test to assess the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 244 / Thursday, December 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 72331 

compliance of weight-based warning 

systems, as a pressure sensitive mat 

with 40 lb threshold for actuation still 

will detect a passenger using a mobility 

aid or a small child without a mobility 

aid who may be boarding the lift 

platform from the vehicle floor. If a lift 

manufacturer chooses to certify to 

S6.1.2 and S6.1.3 with a human 

representative of a 5th percentile female 

in the S7.4 test procedure, the 

manufacturer shall select this option by 

the time it certifies the lift and may not 

thereafter select a different test option 

for the lift. 

E. Amend the Wheelchair Test Device 

Specification in S7.1.2 of FMVSS No. 

403 To Include Anti-tip Devices 

Ricon petitioned the agency to amend 

the wheelchair test device specification 

in S7.1.2 of FMVSS No. 403 to include 

anti-tipping devices. The specification 

set forth in S7.1.2 currently does not 

permit the wheelchair test device to be 

outfitted with an anti-tipping device. In 

its petition, Ricon states that it is 

common industry practice to equip 

powered wheelchairs with an antitipping feature, especially if the 

wheelchair is to be used in public 

transportation. Ricon states also that the 

addition of this feature to S7.1.2 will 

make the test device more 

representative of current industry 

standards. 

Agency response: The agency denies 

Ricon’s request that the wheelchair test 

device specification set forth in S7.1.2 

of FMVSS No. 403 be amended to 

include anti-tipping devices. The 

wheelchair test device is used in the 

wheelchair retention device impact tests 

specified in S7.7 to determine whether 

a lift’s wheelchair retention equipment 

complies with S6.4.7.1 and S6.4.7.2. It 

also is used in the inner roll stop tests 

specified in S7.8 to assess whether its 

inner roll stops comply with the 

requirements in S6.4.8.3. In these tests, 

the test device evaluates the ability of 

the wheelchair retention device and 

inner roll stop to prevent the wheelchair 

from rolling over the outer and inner 

edges of the platform. Neither test is 

designed specifically to simulate real 

world operating conditions. 

When the means of retaining a 

wheelchair test device is an outer 

barrier, the addition of anti-tipping bars 

limits the climbing ability of the test 

device and decreases the utility of the 

impact test. The agency notes also that 

a user can rotate anti-tipping devices to 

an ‘‘up’’ position, which renders them 

ineffective, or easily remove them. 

Additionally, not all wheelchairs used 

on platform lifts are equipped with antitipping devices. For these reasons, the 

agency believes that the addition of antitip devices to S7.1.2 would not 

necessarily make the wheelchair test 

device more representative of a real 

world operating environment, but 

would reduce the effectiveness of the 

compliance tests. 

F. Amend the Wheelchair Retention 

Impact Test Specifications in S7.7 of 

FMVSS No. 403 To Permit Use of a 

Loaded Wheelchair Test Device 

Ricon petitioned the agency also to 

amend the wheelchair retention impact 

test requirements in S7.7 of FMVSS No. 

403 to permit the addition of weight to 

the wheelchair test device. S7.7 

currently does not permit the 

wheelchair test device to be loaded 

during the wheelchair retention device 

impact test. In support of its petition, 

Ricon submitted a technical analysis 

indicating that the center of gravity of 

an unloaded wheelchair changes 

significantly with respect to the lift 

upon impact with an outer barrier 

serving as a wheelchair retention 

device. Ricon found that, in 

combination with the continued 

forward motion of the drive wheels, this 

change in the center of gravity upon 

impact with the outer barrier causes the 

test device to flip backward, resulting in 

failure of the impact test. Ricon’s 

analysis indicated that this occurrence 

is unrelated to the height of the outer 

barrier. On the basis of its analysis, 

Ricon concluded that the addition of 

weight (it recommended a load of 110 

pounds (50 kilograms) to simulate a 5th 

percentile female occupant) to the seat 

of the wheelchair test device during the 

impact test will prevent the wheelchair 

from flipping backward after impact 

with the test barrier and make the test 

more representative of real world 

conditions. 

Agency Response: The agency grants 

Ricon’s petition to propose amending 

the wheelchair retention impact test 

specifications to add weight to the seat 

of the wheelchair test device during the 

impact test specified in S7.7. This test 

examines whether a wheelchair test 

device will roll over or plow through a 

platform’s wheelchair retention device 

upon impact at different speeds and 

wheelchair directions. Data from recent 

testing performed by NHTSA confirms 

the results of the technical analysis 

submitted by Ricon. Adding a low 

profile weight to the seat of the 

wheelchair test device will help 

stabilize it during both the wheelchair 

retention and inner roll stop impact 

tests. Adding weight to the wheelchair 

test device, however, also will increase 

the force with which the test device 

strikes the barrier being tested, which 

could cause some currently acceptable 

barriers to fail. Therefore, NHTSA 

proposes an amendment to S7.7 to 

permit, but not require, the addition of 

a 50 kilogram (110 pound) weight to the 

seat of the wheelchair test device, 

distributed evenly and symmetrically, 

during testing. This load will provide 

some additional stability and, in most 

cases, will prevent the wheelchair test 

device from falling backwards after 

impact with the wheelchair retention 

barrier. If a lift manufacturer chooses to 

certify to S6.4.7 with a 50 kilogram 

weight in the seat of the wheelchair test 

device in the S7.7 test procedure, the 

manufacturer shall select this option by 

the time it certified the lift and may not 

thereafter select a different test option. 

The petition from Ricon and our 

recent testing prompted the agency to 

consider revising other aspects of the 

wheelchair retention device and inner 

roll stop tests specified in S7.7 and S7.8. 

Our testing indicated that during 

forward impact tests on wheelchair 

retention and roll stop devices, even a 

loaded wheelchair test device 

sometimes fell backwards on the 

platform or remained upright, but 

without all four wheels in contact with 

the platform. During some rearward 

outer barrier impact tests, the 

wheelchair test device climbed the outer 

barrier and went off the platform. 

Technically, these outcomes 

constitute failures of the wheelchair 

retention test specified in S7.7 and the 

inner roll stop test specified in S7.8. We 

believe that the outcomes were caused 

by the continued application of power 

to the drive wheels of the wheelchair 

test device after impact. 

In the case of wheelchair retention 

device and inner roll stop impact tests, 

the wheelchair test device is used 

primarily as a barrier evaluator. It tests 

whether the wheelchair test device will 

plow through or roll over the barrier 

when striking it at specific speeds. We 

believe that it could be difficult to 

design wheelchair retention devices and 

inner roll stops that protect wheelchair 

passengers from all possible situations 

without interfering with the normal 

operation of the lift. We also believe that 

it is sufficient to ensure that the strength 

and configuration of wheelchair 

retention devices and inner roll stops 

are such that wheelchairs will not plow 

through or roll over them. With such 

systems in place and in typical real 

world situations, occupied wheelchairs 

will not be moving at high rates of speed 

on the platform, occupants will 

terminate drive power upon impact 

with a barrier, and occupied 

wheelchairs will be retained on the 

platform without falling over. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
72332 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 244 / Thursday, December 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

2The ADA lighting specification was based on 

existing Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

lighting requirements set forth in 49 CFR 609.15. 

3U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Aviation Administration Human Factors Design 

Guide for acquisitions of Commercial-off-the-shelf 

subsystems, non-developmental items, and 

developmental systems, January 15, 1996, DOT/ 

FAA/CT–96/1. 

Thus, the technical failures described 

in Ricon’s petition and replicated in our 

testing appear to be more a function of 

current test methods than the 

inadequacy of the wheelchair retention 

device or inner roll stop being tested. 

Consequently, the agency is proposing 

amendments to the test specifications in 

S7.7 and S7.8 to provide for termination 

of the wheelchair drive motors via the 

wheelchair controller after the initial 

impact of any portion of the wheelchair 

test device with the barrier. These tests 

currently require that a test device 

remain powered following the impact 

with a barrier. However, maintaining 

power to the test device after the impact 

not only contributes to the technical 

failures discussed above (i.e., those 

unrelated to the adequacy of the outer 

barrier or inner roll stop being tested), 

but also may result in testing 

inconsistencies, due to differences in 

the drive wheel torque and stall rates of 

some test devices. 

Terminating power during the 

wheelchair retention and inner roll stop 

impact tests will stabilize the 

wheelchair test device after impact and 

thereby help prevent such technical 

failures and related damage to the 

wheelchair test device and/or lift. At the 

same time, the proposed amendment 

will not reduce significantly the force 

with which the test device strikes the 

barrier or otherwise compromise the 

effectiveness of the tests. In addition, 

removing power to the drive motors via 

the wheelchair controller rather than by 

terminating power at the batteries will 

prevent the automatic parking brakes of 

the test device from engaging, which 

could undermine the integrity of the 

tests. 

As these tests are complete after 

impact, NHTSA proposes amending 

S6.4.7 to strike the current requirement 

that the wheelchair test device remain 

upright with all of its wheels in contact 

with the platform surface following 

impact. Instead, NHTSA proposes to 

revise S6.4.7 to provide that a 

wheelchair retention device passes the 

impact test if, after impact, the 

wheelchair test device remains 

supported by the platform surface with 

none of the axles of its wheels extending 

beyond the plane perpendicular to the 

platform reference plane (Figure 1) 

which passes through the edge of the 

platform surface that is traversed when 

entering or exiting the platform from the 

ground level loading position. The 

proposed test criteria references axles 

rather than wheels to prevent the 

occurrence of another type of technical 

failure (i.e., test failure unrelated to the 

adequacy of the barrier) during rearward 

testing, when the large wheels of the 

wheelchair test device may rest on the 

platform and touch the outer barrier 

with tires extending beyond the plane 

after impact. 

On the same basis, NHTSA proposes 

amending S6.4.8.3 to provide that an 

inner roll stop passes the impact portion 

of the test if the front wheels of the 

wheelchair test device do not extend 

beyond the plane that is perpendicular 

to the platform reference plane (Figure 

1) and which passes through the edge of 

the platform where the roll stop is 

located when the lift is at ground level 

loading position. 

G. Amend the Requirements for 

Platform Lighting on Public Lifts in 

S4.1.5 of FMVSS No. 404 To Reduce the 

Illumination Levels to Those Specified 

by the ADA and FTA 

Blue Bird, the SBMTC and the 

MCSSB requested that the agency 

amend S4.1.5 to reduce the required 

platform illumination levels to those 

specified by the ADA and FTA.2 S4.1.5 

currently requires that public use lifts 

have a light or set of lights that provides 

at least 54 lm/m2 (5 lm/ft2) of luminance 

on all portions of the surface of the 

platform, throughout the range of 

passenger operation. S4.1.5 requires also 

that, at ground level, all portions of the 

lift’s unloading ramp have at least 11 

lm/m2 (1 lm/sqft). The platform lighting 

requirements in FMVSS No. 404 apply 

to public-use lifts installed on vehicles 

with a GVWR greater than 4536 kg 

(10,000 pounds), including motor 

coaches, transit buses and school buses. 

Section 38.31 of the ADA 

Accessibility Specifications for 

Transportation Vehicles requires 2 lm/ 

sqft of illumination on the lift platform 

at floor level and 1 lm/sqft of 

illumination on the lift platform or ramp 

at ground level. While S4.1.5 of FMVSS 

No. 404 and Section 38.31 of the ADA 

Accessibility Specifications impose 

lighting requirements for platforms or 

ramps at ground level that are identical, 

S4.1.5 imposes a platform lighting 

requirement, throughout the range of 

operation, that is more than 21⁄2 times 

greater than that required by the ADA. 

In support of its request, the MCSBB 

argues that the ADA platform lighting 

requirements have been in effect for 

some time and appear to be reasonable. 

It therefore contends that continuing to 

require compliance with the higher 

lighting requirements set forth in S4.1.5 

seems ‘‘quite excessive and unjustified.’’

Blue Bird, the MCSBB, and the SBMTC 

all state that imposing lighting 

requirements in excess of those required 

by the ADA could have adverse safety 

effects, including a potential burn risk 

to users, distraction to oncoming drivers 

and glare in the eyes of users. The 

SBMTC also states that the higher 

luminance level requirements could 

place a drain on a vehicle’s battery 

during lift operation, which typically 

occurs with the vehicle’s engine shut 

off. Additionally, Blue Bird notes that 

the December 27, 2002 Final Rule 

identifies the ADA and FTA as sources 

for the platform lighting requirements 

set forth in S4.1.5. Yet, as discussed 

above, S4.1.5 adopted a platform 

lighting standard that, in parts, far 

exceeds ADA and FTA standards. 

Agency Response: The agency grants 

the petitions of Blue Bird, the SBMTC 

and the MCSSB to propose amending 

S4.1.5 to reduce the required platform 

illumination levels to those specified by 

the ADA and FTA. The lighting 

requirements in S4.1.5 were based, 

generally, on guidelines and 

requirements that specified lighting 

levels for similar access areas in 

different modes of public transport. For 

example, the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) Human Factors 

Design Guide 3 provides for a minimum 

illumination level on corridors of 

approximately 110 lm/m2 or 110 Lux 

(10.2 lm/ft2 or 10.2 foot-candle). Similar 

guidelines identify a suggested 

illumination level of as much as 100 lm/ 

m2 or 100 Lux (9.3 lm/ft2 or 9.3 footcandle) for general lighting in corridors, 

stairs and other access areas. Although 

not specific to lift platforms, the lighting 

guidelines and requirements applicable 

to corridors and stairs are relevant to lift 

platforms, as corridors, stairs and 

platform lifts all are types of access 

areas. Given the lighting requirements 

applicable to these comparable access 

areas, the agency therefore believes it is 

not accurate to describe as ‘‘excessive’’

or ‘‘unjustified’’ the requirement in 

S4.5.1 that a platform lift be illuminated 

by at least 54 lm/m2 (5 lm/ft2), 

throughout the range of passenger 

operation. 

That being said, Blue Bird is correct 

in noting that NHTSA’s December 27, 

2002 Final Rule identifies the ADA and 

FTA as the sources for the platform 

lighting requirements set forth in S4.1.5, 

even though S4.5.1’s illumination 

requirements, in parts, exceed ADA and 

FTA lighting specifications 

significantly. Additionally, in our 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 244 / Thursday, December 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 72333 

4The National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act requires Federal agencies to use 

technical standards that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards bodies when 

such technical standards are available (see section 

12(d) of Pub. L. 104–113) and are consistent with 

authorizing legislation of the agencies. 

5As defined in OMB Circular A–119, Federal 

Participation in the Development and Use of 

Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity 

Assessment Activities, ‘‘impractical’’ includes 

circumstances in which such use would fail to 

serve the agency’s program needs; would be 

infeasible; would be inadequate, ineffectual, 

inefficient, or inconsistent with agency mission; or 

would impose more burdens, or would be less 

useful, than the use of another standard. 

October 1, 2004, final rule (69 FR 

58843), which responded to petitions 

for reconsideration, NHTSA stated as 

one justification for moving the lighting 

requirements from FMVSS No. 403 to 

FMVSS No. 404 and to demonstrate that 

such a move would not impose an 

additional burden on public use 

manufacturers—that ‘‘public-use vehicle 

manufacturers already must comply 

with ADA lighting standards, which 

require lighting on doorways, stepwells, lifts and ramps.’’ However, the 

platform lighting requirements in 

FMVSS No. 404–and the ADA would 

need to be coextensive in order to avoid 

placing an additional burden on 

manufacturers by requiring that they 

comply both with the ADA and with the 

more rigorous lighting requirements in 

FMVSS No. 404. 

We note also that the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act 4 would have required NHTSA to 

adopt industry and government 

platform lighting standards, provided 

they were not impractical.5 In 

retrospect, the extent to which the 

agency intended to adopt the FTA-based 

ADA lighting standard applicable to 

public use lifts is unclear. However, 

amending S4.1.5 to reduce the required 

platform illumination levels to those 

specified by the ADA and FTA at this 

juncture would be consistent with that 

Act. 

Therefore, as a result of the petitions 

from Blue Bird, the SBMTC and the 

MCSSB and for the reasons stated 

above, NHTSA is persuaded to propose 

changing the minimum illumination 

required on lift platforms to that 

required by the ADA and FTA. 

Additionally, in response to comments 

received by the agency about the lack of 

a test procedure to demonstrate 

compliance with the lighting 

requirement, NHTSA is proposing to 

amend S4.5.1 to provide vehicle 

manufacturers with guidance relative to 

platform illumination testing, which 

NHTSA proposes should be done with 

a vehicle’s engine shut off. 

III. Technical Changes 

A. Amend S7 of FMVSS No. 403 To 

Require Performance of the Handrail 

Test in S7.12 on a Lift/Vehicle 

Combination Rather Than on a Test Jig 

S6.4.9 of FMVSS No. 403 details the 

handrail requirements for public and 

private use lifts. S6.4.9.8 of that 

standard provides that ‘‘when tested in 

accordance with S7.12.1, there must be 

at least 38 mm (1.5 inches) of clearance 

between each handrail and any portion 

of the vehicle, throughout the range of 

passenger operation.’’ In order to 

measure this clearance, the lift must be 

mounted on a vehicle during the test. 

However, the test conditions and 

procedures set forth in S7 currently 

permit the tests specified in S7.12 to be 

performed with a lift installed on a test 

jig rather than on a vehicle. If performed 

on a test jig, it is not possible to 

determine clearances between the 

handrails and the vehicle during the 

test. NHTSA proposes to amend S7 of 

FMVSS No. 403 to require the handrail 

test to be performed on a lift/vehicle 

combination. 

B. Correct Figure 2 in FMVSS No. 403 

To Make it Consistent With the 

Threshold Beacon Warning 

Requirements in S6.1.6 

It has come to NHTSA’s attention that 

a dimension in Figure 2 is incorrect. 

The height of the measurement point 

from which the intensity of the 

threshold audible warning is measured 

and the threshold warning beacon must 

be visible is identified as 919 mm. 

Because S6.1.6 provides that this 

measurement point is 914 mm (3 feet), 

we are proposing to replace Figure 2 

with revised Figure 2, which shows a 

measurement point of 914 mm (3 feet), 

consistent with the requirements of 

S6.1.6. 

C. Clarify the Control Panel Switch 

Requirements in S6.7.4 of FMVSS No. 

403 

It has come to our attention through 

letters from lift manufacturers in 

response to NHTSA’s compliance 

testing that some confusion exists about 

the control panel switch requirements 

in S6.7.4 of FMVSS 403. S6.7.4 provides 

that, except for the POWER function, 

the control panel switches that control 

the stow (fold), deploy (unfold), down 

(lower) and up (raise) functions must 

prevent the simultaneous performance 

of more than one function. Commenters 

have indicated that S6.7.4 does not 

specify what is required when two or 

more switches are actuated 

simultaneously. To clarify what the 

standard requires, NHTSA is proposing 

to amend S6.7.4 to provide that if an 

initial function is actuated, then one or 

more other functions are actuated while 

the initial function remains actuated, 

the platform must either continue in the 

direction dictated by the initial function 

or stop. Compliance test procedure TP–

403–00, Laboratory Test Procedure for 

FMVSS No. 403, Platform Lift Systems 

for Motor Vehicles addresses this issue 

and can be viewed or obtained from the 

NHTSA Web site (http:// 

www.nhtsa.dot.gov). 

D. Amend the Interlock Requirements 

and Test Procedure in S6.10.2.4, 

S6.10.2.5, S6.10.2.6, S6.10.2.7, S7.5 and 

S7.6 of FMVSS No. 403 

As a result of compliance testing and 

subsequent, related communications 

from a lift manufacturer, it has come to 

NHTSA’s attention that some confusion 

exists about how the test that is 

specified in S7.5 is to be used to verify 

compliance with the interlock 

requirements in S6.10.2.5 (interlock to 

prevent vertical movement of the lift 

unless the wheelchair retention device 

is deployed) and S6.10.2.6 (interlock to 

prevent outer barrier deployment while 

barrier area is occupied). Based on 

communications received by the agency, 

it appears that some manufacturers 

believe that the portion of the test 

procedure described in S7.5.2 applies 

only to the requirements of S6.10.2.5 

and that the portion of the procedure 

described in S7.5.3 applies only to 

S6.10.2.6. Consequently, NHTSA 

proposes revising and renumbering 

these sections to reinforce the fact that 

S7.5.2 and S7.5.3 together constitute 

one test procedure used to determine 

compliance with the interlock 

requirements in S6.10.2.5 as well as 

with the interlock requirements in 

S6.10.2.6. 

Confusion also exists about how the 

test that is specified in S7.6 and verifies 

compliance with the inner roll stop 

occupancy interlock requirements and 

the inner roll stop non-deployment 

interlock requirements applies to the 

inner roll stop requirements in 

S6.10.2.4. Specifically, the test 

procedure set forth in S7.6.2 and S7.6.3 

uses as a reference point for determining 

the location at which the roll stop 

‘‘starts to deploy.’’ By contrast, the inner 

roll stop non-deployment interlock 

requirement set forth in S6.10.2.4 

assesses compliance at ‘‘the level where 

the inner roll stop is designed to 

deploy.’’ At least one manufacturer 

found the conflicting terminology 

between the test procedure and this 

requirement incompatible. 

Consequently, NHTSA has proposed 

revising S7.6.2 and S7.6.3 to replace 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
72334 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 244 / Thursday, December 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

references to ‘‘start to deploy’’ with 

references to ‘‘designed to deploy,’’

consistent with the requirement set 

forth in S6.10.2.4. Additionally, to 

maintain symmetry between the outer 

barrier and inner roll stop interlock test 

procedures, we have proposed revising 

and renumbering these sections to 

reinforce the fact that S7.6.2 and S7.6.3 

together constitute one test procedure 

used to determine compliance with the 

interlock requirements set forth in both 

S6.10.2.4 and S6.10.2.7. 

NHTSA also is aware of additional 

confusion stemming from the portion of 

the outer barrier interlock test procedure 

specified in S7.5.2. The current test 

procedure detailed in S7.5.2 provides 

that the platform should be stopped and 

its distance from the ground measured 

at the location where the outer barrier 

begins to deploy to verify that it is not 

greater than 75 mm (3 in). This 

measurement has little value because 

NHTSA is concerned mainly that the 

outer barrier be fully deployed by the 

time the platform is 75 mm (3 in) above 

the ground. NHTSA proposes new 

language in S7.5.1.1 and S7.5.1.2 that 

provides for the platform to be moved 

up until the outer barrier starts to 

deploy. This maneuver will help to 

determine the edge where to place the 

wheel of the wheelchair test device. The 

new proposed language then instructs 

that the front wheel of the wheelchair 

test device be placed on the edge of the 

outer barrier and that the platform be 

moved up until it stops. If both 

interlocks are working correctly, the 

wheel of the wheelchair test device will 

prevent the outer barrier from 

deploying, the wheelchair test device 

wheel will not move vertically upward 

more then 13 mm (0.5 in) and the 

platform will automatically stop before 

its upper surface is greater than 75 mm 

(3 in) above the ground. If the outer roll 

stop deploys and raises the wheelchair 

test device wheel off the platform more 

than 13 mm (0.5 inches), the lift fails 

S6.10.2.6. If the wheelchair test device 

wheel prevents the outer barrier from 

deploying and the platform stops at a 

level greater than 75 mm (3 in) above 

the ground, the lift fails S6.10.2.5. 

It has come to NHTSA’s attention that 

similar confusion exists with respect to 

the inner roll stop interlock test detailed 

in S7.6.2. S7.6.2 provides that the 

location where the inner roll stop starts 

to deploy should be noted during 

testing. However, this location is of little 

value when assessing compliance with 

S6.10.2.5, as NHTSA is interested 

primarily in the location where the 

inner roll stop fully deploys—not where 

it starts to deploy. Unlike the outer 

barrier, NHTSA has no specification 

relative to the level at which inner roll 

stops should deploy. The inner roll stop 

will fully deploy at different levels 

depending on the lift design. Therefore, 

during testing, NHTSA notes the 

location where the inner roll stop 

deploys fully on the particular lift being 

tested, as well as when the wheel of the 

wheelchair test device prevents 

deployment; the platform automatically 

should stop before it goes beyond the 

location were the inner roll stop deploys 

fully. 

New proposed language in S7.6.2 and 

S7.6.3 now requires that the location 

where the inner roll stop fully deploys 

should be noted. It also requires that the 

platform be moved back to vehicle floor 

level and then down until the inner roll 

stop starts to deploy. This maneuver 

helps to determine the edge where the 

wheel of the wheelchair test device 

must be placed. One front wheel of the 

wheelchair test device is placed on the 

edge of the inner roll stop and the 

platform is moved down until it 

automatically stops. If the inner roll 

stop deploys and raises the wheelchair 

test device wheel vertically more than 

13 mm (0.5 in), the lift fails S6.10.2.7. 

If the wheel of the wheelchair test 

device prevents the inner roll stop from 

deploying and the platform travels 

beyond the full deployment location 

previously noted, then the lift fails 

S6.10.2.4. The lift passes both S6.10.2.4 

and S6.10.2.7 if inner roll stop does not 

deploy, does not raise the wheel of the 

wheelchair test device vertically more 

than 13 mm (0.5 in) and the platform 

automatically stops before it travels 

beyond the previously noted location 

where the inner roll stop is designed to 

be fully deployed. 

IV. November 3, 2005 Interpretation 

On November 3, 2005, we issued an 

interpretation letter of S7.4 of FMVSS 

No. 403, addressed to Maxon. The 

November 3 interpretation clarified 

specific procedures that should be 

performed as part of the threshold 

warning signal test. Although the 

agency has decided against revising the 

language of S7.4, we include a 

discussion of the matter in this 

document to ensure wide-spread 

dissemination of the interpretation. 

In asking about the threshold warning 

requirements, the incoming letter 

suggested that there was an apparent 

inconsistency between the requirement 

and the associated test procedure. The 

agency explained, as follows, that the 

specified test procedure for the 

threshhold warning system is consistent 

with that requirement: 

As part of FMVSS No. 403, the agency 

established a threshold warning signal 

requirement for platform lifts in part to 

minimize the risk of a lift user backing off a 

vehicle before a lift is properly positioned. 

S6.1 of FMVSS No. 403 requires an 

appropriate threshold warning signal to be 

activated when any portion of a passenger’s 

body or mobility aid occupies the platform 

threshold area defined in S4 of that standard, 

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

below the vehicle floor reference plane. A 

platform lift must meet this requirement 

when tested in accordance with S7.4 of the 

standard. 

In your letter you stated that it is possible 

to design a threshold warning system that 

‘‘will pass a test that is performed as 

described in S7.4 and not completely fulfill 

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

threshold warning system designed with an 

optical sensor at the interior boundary of the 

platform threshold area. You stated that such 

a system would activate the warning signal 

only when a passenger is crossing the 

boundary of the threshold at the same time 

as the platform is lower than 25 mm from the 

vehicle floor. You further stated that such a 

system would not activate a signal if a 

passenger were completely within the 

threshold area when the platform reached the 

specified distance from the vehicle floor. 

Your letter indicated that you believe that 

such a system would ‘‘pass’’ the test 

procedure, but not comply fully with the 

requirement. 

A system as you described would not 

comply with the requirements of S6.1.3 when 

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

S6.1 requires the appropriate warning signal 

to activate when tested in accordance with 

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

lift at the vehicle floor loading position: 

[P]lace one front wheel of the unloaded 

wheelchair test device [specified in S7.1.2] 

on any portion of the threshold area defined 

in S4. Move the platform down until the 

alarm is actuated. Remove the test 

wheelchair wheel from the threshold area to 

deactivate the alarm. Measure the vertical 

distance between the platform and the 

threshold area and determine whether that 

distance is greater than 25 mm (1 in). 

Thus, S7.4.2 specifies placing the front 

wheel of the test device on any portion of the 

threshold area. As explained in 49 CFR 

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

connection with a range of values or set of 

items means generally, ‘‘the totality of the 

items or values, any one of which may be 

selected by the [agency] for testing’’. 

Accordingly, the procedure specified in 

S7.4.2 includes placement of the front wheel 

that could result in the entire test device 

being within the threshold area prior to the 

platform being lowered. This also includes 

placement that results in a portion of the test 

device being on the platform. 

Given the discussion above, a system such 

as you described would not comply when 

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

discrepancy between the requirement of 

S6.1.3 and the test procedure specified in 

S7.4. 

V. Proposed Compliance Date 

The proposed amendments would be 

mandatory for purposes of compliance 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 244 / Thursday, December 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 72335 

6See 49 CFR 553.21. 

7Optical character recognition (OCR) is the 

process of converting an image of text, such as a 

scanned paper document or electronic fax file, into 

computer-editable text. 8See 49 CFR 512. 

180 days after publication of a final rule. 

Optional compliance would be 

permitted immediately upon 

publication of the final rule. We believe 

these dates would be appropriate given 

that the amendments would be for the 

purpose of clarifying the requirements 

of the standard and providing further 

flexibility in compliance. 

VI. Public Participation 

How Do I Prepare and Submit 

Comments? 

Your comments must be written and 

in English. To ensure that your 

comments are correctly filed in the 

Docket, please include the docket 

number of this document in your 

comments. Your comments must not be 

more than 15 pages long.6 We 

established this limit to encourage you 

to write your primary comments in a 

concise fashion. However, you may 

attach necessary additional documents 

to your comments. There is no limit on 

the length of the attachments. 

Please submit your comments by any 

of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

M–30, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building, Ground 

Floor, Rm. W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 

9 am and 5 pm Eastern Time, Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

If you are submitting comments 

electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we 

ask that the documents submitted be 

scanned using Optical Character 

Recognition (OCR) process, thus 

allowing the agency to search and copy 

certain portions of your submissions.7

Please note that pursuant to the Data 

Quality Act, in order for substantive 

data to be relied upon and used by the 

agency, it must meet the information 

quality standards set forth in the OMB 

and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. 

Accordingly, we encourage you to 

consult the guidelines in preparing your 

comments. OMB’s guidelines may be 

accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT’s 

guidelines may be accessed at http:// 

dmses.dot.gov/submit/ 

DataQualityGuidelines.pdf. 

How Can I Be Sure That My Comments 

Were Received? 

If you submit your comments by mail 

and wish Docket Management to notify 

you upon its receipt of your comments, 

enclose a self-addressed, stamped 

postcard in the envelope containing 

your comments. Upon receiving your 

comments, Docket Management will 

return the postcard by mail. 

How Do I Submit Confidential Business 

Information? 

If you wish to submit any information 

under a claim of confidentiality, you 

should submit three copies of your 

complete submission, including the 

information you claim to be confidential 

business information, to the Chief 

Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 

above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. When you send a comment 

containing information claimed to be 

confidential business information, you 

should include a cover letter setting 

forth the information specified in our 

confidential business information 

regulation.8

In addition, you should submit a 

copy, from which you have deleted the 

claimed confidential business 

information, to the Docket by one of the 

methods set forth above. 

Will the Agency Consider Late 

Comments? 

We will consider all comments 

received before the close of business on 

the comment closing date indicated 

above under DATES. To the extent 

possible, we will also consider 

comments received after that date. If a 

comment is received too late for us to 

consider in developing a final rule 

(assuming that one is issued), we will 

consider that comment as an informal 

suggestion for future rulemaking action. 

How Can I Read the Comments 

Submitted by Other People? 

You may read the materials placed in 

the docket for this document (e.g., the 

comments submitted in response to this 

document by other interested persons) 

at any time by going to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the dockets. 

You may also read the materials at the 

Docket Management Facility by going to 

the street address given above under 

ADDRESSES. The Docket Management 

Facility is open between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

This rulemaking document was not 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget under E.O. 12866. It is not 

considered to be significant under E.O. 

12866 or the Department’s Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; 

February 26, 1979). 

This document proposes amendments 

to FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 to clarify 

the requirements of the standard and to 

provide further flexibility in 

compliance. The impacts of the 

proposed amendments are so minimal 

that a full regulatory evaluation is not 

required. Readers who are interested in 

the overall costs and benefits of the 

platform lift requirements are referred to 

the agency’s Final Economic 

Assessment for the December 2002 final 

rule (Docket No. NHTSA–2002–13917–

3). The amendments proposed by this 

document will not change the costs and 

benefits in a quantifiable manner. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

In compliance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 

NHTSA has evaluated the effects of this 

action on small entities. I hereby certify 

that this proposed rule would not have 

a significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The NPRM 

does not propose to impose new 

requirements but instead proposes 

amendments to FMVSS Nos. 403 and 

404 to clarify the requirements of the 

standards and to provide further 

flexibility in compliance. 

Executive Order 13132 

NHTSA has examined today’s NPRM 

pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 

FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and 

concluded that no additional 

consultation with States, local 

governments or their representatives is 

mandated beyond the rulemaking 

process. The agency has concluded that 

the rulemaking would not have 

federalism implications because a final 

rule, if issued, would not have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’

Further, no consultation is needed to 

discuss the preemptive effect of today’s 

rulemaking. NHTSA rules can have 

preemptive effect in at least two ways. 

First, the National Traffic and Motor 

Vehicle Safety Act contains an express 

preemptive provision: ‘‘When a motor 

vehicle safety standard is in effect under 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
72336 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 244 / Thursday, December 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

this chapter, a State or a political 

subdivision of a State may prescribe or 

continue in effect a standard applicable 

to the same aspect of performance of a 

motor vehicle or motor vehicle 

equipment only if the standard is 

identical to the standard prescribed 

under this chapter.’’ 49 U.S.C. 

30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command 

that preempts State law, not today’s 

rulemaking, so consultation would be 

inappropriate. 

In addition to the express preemption 

noted above, the Supreme Court has 

also recognized that State requirements 

imposed on motor vehicle 

manufacturers, including sanctions 

imposed by State tort law, can stand as 

an obstacle to the accomplishment and 

execution of a NHTSA safety standard. 

When such a conflict is discerned, the 

Supremacy Clause of the Constitution 

makes their State requirements 

unenforceable. See Geier v. American 

Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000). 

NHTSA has not outlined such potential 

State requirements in today’s 

rulemaking, however, in part because 

such conflicts can arise in varied 

contexts, but it is conceivable that such 

a conflict may become clear through 

subsequent experience with today’s 

standard and test regime. NHTSA may 

opine on such conflicts in the future, if 

warranted. See id. at 883–86. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this NPRM for 

the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. The agency 

has determined that implementation of 

this action would not have any 

significant impact on the quality of the 

human environment. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the procedures established by 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a 

person is not required to respond to a 

collection of information by a Federal 

agency unless the collection displays a 

valid OMB control number. This NPRM 

would not establish any new 

information collection requirements. 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Under the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

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

agencies and departments shall use 

technical standards that are developed 

or adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies, using such technical 

standards as a means to carry out policy 

objectives or activities determined by 

the agencies and departments.’’

As discussed in the preamble to the 

December 2002 final rule, the 

equipment standard was drafted to 

include or exceed all existing 

government (FTA, ADA) and voluntary 

industry (e.g., SAE) standards. 67 FR 

79416, 79438; December 27, 2002. 

Readers who are interested in the source 

of the requirements in FMVSS No. 403 

are referred to that document. The 

agency included a table showing the 

source of each requirement in FMVSS 

No. 403. 

This document is not proposing to 

impose new requirements but is instead 

proposing amendments to FMVSS Nos. 

403 and 404 to clarify the requirements 

of the standards and to provide further 

flexibility in compliance. As discussed 

earlier in this document, the proposal to 

amend S4.1.5 of FMVSS No. 404 to 

reduce the required platform 

illumination levels to those specified by 

the ADA and FTA is consistent with the 

NTTAA. 

Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of the 

promulgation of a new regulation, 

section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, 

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

February 7, 1996) requires that 

Executive agencies make every 

reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies 

the effect on existing Federal law or 

regulation; (3) provides a clear legal 

standard for affected conduct, while 

promoting simplification and burden 

reduction; (4) clearly specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (7) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. This document is consistent 

with that requirement. 

Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes 

as follows. The preemptive effect of this 

proposed rule is discussed above. 

NHTSA notes further that there is no 

requirement that individuals submit a 

petition for reconsideration or pursue 

other administrative proceeding before 

they may file suit in court. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

more than $100 million annually 

(adjusted for inflation with base year of 

1995). This NPRM would not result in 

expenditures by State, local or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector in excess of $100 million 

annually. 

Executive Order 13045 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under E.O. 

12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental, health, or safety risk that 

NHTSA has reason to believe may have 

a disproportionate effect on children. 

This rulemaking is not subject to the 

Executive Order because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

E.O. 12866. 

Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 18, 2001) applies to any 

rulemaking that: (1) Is determined to be 

economically significant as defined 

under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have 

a significantly adverse effect on the 

supply of, distribution of, or use of 

energy; or (2) that is designated by the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 

significant energy action. This 

rulemaking is not subject to E.O. 13211. 

Plain Language 

Executive Order 12866 and the 

President’s memorandum of June 1, 

1998, require each agency to write all 

rules in plain language. Application of 

the principles of plain language 

includes consideration of the following 

questions: 

• Have we organized the material to 

suit the public’s needs? 

• Are the requirements in the rule 

clearly stated? 

• Does the rule contain technical 

language or jargon that isn’t clear? 

• Would a different format (grouping 

and order of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing) make the rule easier to 

understand? 

• Would more (but shorter) sections 

be better? 

• Could we improve clarity by adding 

tables, lists, or diagrams? 

• What else could we do to make the 

rule easier to understand? 

If you have any responses to these 

questions, please include them in your 

comments on this proposal. 

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

The Department of Transportation 

assigns a regulation identifier number 

(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in 

the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. You may use the RIN contained in 

the heading at the beginning of this 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 244 / Thursday, December 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 72337 

document to find this action in the 

Unified Agenda. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

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

may visit http://dms.dot.gov. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor 

vehicles, and Tires. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA is proposing to amend 49 CFR 

part 571 as follows: 

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR 

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

1. The authority citation for part 571 

of title 49 would continue to read as 

follows: 

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

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50. 

2. Section 571.403 would be amended 

by revising S6.1.4, S6.1.6, S6.4.7.1, 

S6.4.8.3(a), S6.7.4, S6.7.6.2, S6.10.2.4, 

S6.10.2.5, S6.10.2.6, S6.10.2.7, S7, 

S7.4.2, S7.5, S7.5.1, S7.5.2, S7.5.3, S7.6, 

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

S7.8.3, and Figure 2, and by adding new 

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

§ 571.403 Standard No. 403; Platform lift 

systems for motor vehicles. 

* * * * * 

S6.1.4 The visual warning required 

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

red beacon as defined in SAE J578, June 

95, must have a minimum intensity of 

20 candela, a frequency from 1 to 2 Hz, 

and must be located within the interior 

of the vehicle such that it is visible from 

a point 914 mm (3 ft) above the center 

of the threshold area (see Figure 2) 

wherever the lift is installed and with 

any configuration of the vehicle interior. 

* * * * * 

S6.1.6 The intensity of the audible 

warning and visibility of the visual 

warning required by S6.1.2 and S6.1.3 is 

measured/observed at a location 914 

mm (3 ft) above the center of the 

platform threshold area. (See Figure 2). 

* * * * * 

S6.4.7.1 Impact I. Except for 

platform lifts designed so that platform 

loading takes place wholly over the 

vehicle floor, the lift must have a means 

of retaining the test device specified in 

S7.1.2. After impact, the test device 

must remain supported by the platform 

surface with none of the axles of its 

wheels extending beyond the plane 

perpendicular to the platform reference 

plane (Figure 1) and which passes 

through the edge of the platform which 

is traversed when entering or exiting the 

platform from the ground level loading 

position throughout its range of 

passenger operation, except as provided 

in S6.4.7.4. The lift is tested in 

accordance with S7.7 to determine 

compliance with this section. 

* * * * * 

S6.4.8.3 * * * 

(a) The front wheels of the test device 

specified in S7.1.2 from extending 

beyond the plane that is perpendicular 

to the platform reference plane (Figure 

1) and which passes through the edge of 

the platform where the roll stop is 

located when the lift is at ground level 

loading position; and 

* * * * * 

S6.7.4 Except for the POWER 

function described in S6.7.2.1, the 

control system specified in S6.7.2 must 

prevent the simultaneous performance 

of more than one function. If an initial 

function is actuated, then one or more 

other functions are actuated while the 

initial function remains actuated, the 

platform must continue in the direction 

dictated by the initial function or stop. 

Verification with this requirement is 

made throughout the lift operations 

specified in S7.9.3 through S7.9.8. 

* * * * * 

S6.7.6.2 Public use lifts. Public-use 

lift controls located within the portion 

of the passenger compartment specified 

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

(§ 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, S7.8 and S7.13 through S7.14 

may be performed with the lift installed 

on a test jig rather than on a vehicle. 

Tests of requirements in S6.1 through 

S6.11 may be performed on a single lift 

and vehicle combination, except for the 

requirements of S6.5.3. Attachment 

hardware may be replaced if damaged 

by removal and reinstallation of the lift 

between a test jig and vehicle. 

* * * * * 

S7.4.2 During the threshold warning 

test, the wheelchair test device may be 

occupied by a human representative of 

a 5th percentile female meeting the 

requirements of FMVSS 208, S29.1(f) 

and S29.2. If present, the human subject 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
72338 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 244 / Thursday, December 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

must be seated in the wheelchair test 

device and their feet supported by the 

wheelchair foot rests which are adjusted 

properly for length and in the down 

position (not elevated). The 

manufacturer shall select the option by 

the time it certifies the lift and may not 

thereafter select a different test option 

for the lift. Maneuver the lift platform to 

the vehicle floor level loading position. 

Using the wheelchair test device 

specified in S7.1.2, place one front 

wheel of the wheelchair test device on 

any portion of the threshold area 

defined in S4. Move the platform down 

until the alarm is actuated. Remove the 

test wheelchair wheel from the 

threshold area to deactivate the alarm. 

Measure the vertical distance between 

the platform and the threshold area and 

determine whether that distance is 

greater than 25 mm (1 in). 

* * * * * 

S7.5 Outer barrier non-deployment 

interlock and occupied outer barrier 

interlock test. 

S7.5.1 Determine compliance with 

both S6.10.2.5 and S6.10.2.6 by using 

the following single test procedure. 

S7.5.1.1 Place the test jig or vehicle 

on which the lift is installed on a flat, 

level, horizontal surface. Maneuver the 

platform to the ground level loading 

position. Using the lift control, move the 

lift upward until the point where the 

outer barrier fully deploys. Stop the 

platform at that point and measure the 

vertical distance between the highest 

point on the platform surface at the 

outer most edge and the ground to 

determine whether the distance is 

greater than 75 mm (3 in.). Reposition 

the platform in the ground level loading 

position. Locate the wheelchair test 

device specified in S7.1.2 on the 

platform. If other wheelchair retention 

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

prevent the front wheel of the 

wheelchair test device from accessing 

the outer barrier when on the platform, 

the wheelchair test device may be 

placed on the ground facing the 

entrance to the lift. 

S7.5.1.2 Place one front wheel of the 

wheelchair test device on any portion of 

the outer barrier. If the platform is too 

small to maneuver one front wheel on 

the outer barrier, two front wheels may 

be placed on the outer barrier. Note the 

distance between a horizontal plane 

(passing through the point of contact 

between the wheelchair test device 

wheel(s) and the upper surface of the 

outer barrier) and the ground. Using the 

lift control, move the platform up until 

it stops. Measure the vertical distance 

between the highest point of the 

platform surface at the outer most edge 

and the ground to determine 

compliance with S6.10.2.5. Measure the 

vertical change in distance of the 

horizontal plane (passing through the 

point of contact between the wheelchair 

test device wheel(s) and the upper 

surface of the outer barrier) to determine 

compliance with S6.10.2.6. 

S7.6 Inner roll stop non-deployment 

interlock and occupied inner roll stop 

interlock test. 

S7.6.1 Determine compliance with 

both S6.10.2.4 and S6.10.2.7 by using 

the single test procedure in S7.6.2 and 

S7.6.3. 

S7.6.2 Maneuver the platform to the 

vehicle floor level loading position, and 

position the wheelchair test device 

specified in S7.1.2 on the platform with 

the front of the wheelchair test device 

facing the vehicle. Using the lift control, 

move the platform down until the inner 

roll stop fully deploys. Stop the lift and 

note that location. 

S7.6.3 Reposition the platform at the 

vehicle floor level loading position. 

Place one front wheel of the wheelchair 

test device on the inner roll stop. If the 

platform is too small to maneuver one 

front wheel on the inner roll stop, two 

front wheels may be placed on the inner 

roll stop. Note the vertical distance 

between a horizontal plane (passing 

through the point of contact between the 

wheelchair test device wheel(s) and the 

upper surface of the inner roll stop) and 

the ground. Using the lift control, move 

the platform down until it stops. 

Compare the location of the platform 

relative to the location noted in S7.6.2 

to determine compliance with S6.10.2.4. 

Measure the vertical change in distance 

of the horizontal plane (passing through 

the point of contact between the 

wheelchair test device wheel(s) and the 

upper surface of the inner roll stop) to 

determine compliance with S6.10.2.7. 

* * * * * 

S7.7.2.4 An optional 50 kg (110 

pounds) of weight may be centered, 

evenly distributed and secured in the 

seat of the wheelchair test device to 

assist in stabilizing the wheelchair test 

device during testing. The manufacturer 

shall select the option by the time it 

certifies the lift and may not thereafter 

select a different test option for the lift. 

Accelerate the test device onto the 

platform under its own power such that 

the test device impacts the wheelchair 

retention device at each speed and 

direction combination specified in 

S7.7.2.5. Terminate power to the 

wheelchair test device by means of the 

wheelchair controller after the initial 

impact of any portion of the wheelchair 

test device with the wheelchair 

retention device. Note the position of 

the wheelchair test device following 

each impact to determine compliance 

with S6.4.7. If necessary, after each 

impact, adjust or replace the footrests to 

restore them to their original condition. 

S7.7.2.5 The test device is operated 

at the following speeds, in the following 

directions—

(a) At a speed of not less than 2.0 m/ 

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

s (4.7 mph) in the forward direction. 

(b) At a speed of not less than 1.75 m/ 

s (3.9 mph) and not more than 1.85 m/ 

s (4.1 mph) in the rearward direction. 

* * * * * 

S7.8.3 An optional 50 kg (110 

pounds) of weight may be centered, 

evenly distributed and secured in the 

seat of the wheelchair test device to 

assist in stabilizing the wheelchair test 

device during testing. The manufacturer 

shall select the option by the time it 

certifies the lift and may not thereafter 

select a different test option for the lift. 

Accelerate the test device onto the 

platform such that it impacts the inner 

roll stop at a speed of not less than 1.5 

m/s (3.4 mph) and not more than 1.6 m/ 

s (3.6 mph). Terminate power to the 

wheelchair test device by means of the 

wheelchair controller after the initial 

impact of any portion of the wheelchair 

test device with the inner roll stop. 

Determine compliance with S6.4.8.3 (a). 

* * * * * 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 244 / Thursday, December 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 72339 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALSEP20DE07.012</GPH>
72340 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 244 / Thursday, December 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

* * * * * 

3. Section 571.404 would be amended 

by revising S4.1.5 to read as follows: 

§ 571.404 Standard No. 404; Platform lift 

installations in motor vehicles. 

* * * * * 

S4.1.5 Platform Lighting on public 

use lifts. Public-use lifts must be 

provided with a light or set of lights that 

provide at least 22 lm/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. 

Illumination measurements are recorded 

with the vehicle engine not running, 

with the vehicle/lift in an environment 

where there is no apparent ambient 

light, with the sensor portion of the light 

meter within 50 mm (2 inches) of the 

surface being measured and with a light 

meter that has a range comparable to a 

minimum of 0 to 100 Lux, in increments 

comparable to 1 Lux or less, an accuracy 

of ± 5 % of the actual reading and a 

sampling rate of at least 2 Hz. 

* * * * * 

Issued: December 14, 2007. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 07–6146 Filed 12–19–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS