Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Platform Lifts for Motor Vehicles; Platform Lift Installations in Motor Vehicles, 72326-72340 [07-6146]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 244 (Thursday, December 20, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72326-72340]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-6146]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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

[[Page 72327]]

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 https://
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 https://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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FMVSS No. 403 establishes requirements for platform lifts that are 
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

[[Page 72328]]

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

[[Page 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-to-side 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

[[Page 72330]]

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

[[Page 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 anti-tipping 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 anti-tipping devices. For these reasons, the agency believes that 
the addition of anti-tip 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.

[[Page 72332]]

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The ADA lighting specification was based on existing Federal 
Transit Administration (FTA) lighting requirements set forth in 49 
CFR 609.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 2\1/2\ 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 foot-
candle) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ U.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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 72333]]

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, step-wells, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The 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.
    \5\ As 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 (https://
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

[[Page 72334]]

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 
Sec.  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

[[Page 72335]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 49 CFR 553.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please submit your comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to https://
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 usin