[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 145 (Thursday, July 27, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46228-46258]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-18773]



[[Page 46227]]

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

Part III





Department of Transportation





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



National Highway Traffic Safety Administration



49 CFR Part 571



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



Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Platform Lift Systems for 
Accessible Motor Vehicles and Platform Lift Installations on Motor 
Vehicles; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 145 / Thursday, July 27, 2000 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 46228]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-98-4511; Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AD50


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Platform Lift Systems for 
Accessible Motor Vehicles Platform Lift Installations on Motor Vehicles

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

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This document is a supplemental notice proposing to establish 
two new safety standards: an equipment standard specifying requirements 
for platform lifts; and a vehicle standard for all vehicles equipped 
with such lifts.
    This SNPRM significantly differs from our original proposal in 
several respects. Most notably, the scope of our proposal has been 
expanded to platform lifts installed on all motor vehicles. Other 
significant changes are additional interlock requirements, improved 
wheelchair retention and platform slip resistance tests, and, in some 
instances, lesser compliance standards for lifts installed on vehicles 
typically used solely for private transport.
    The proposed equipment standard would require platform lift 
manufacturers to ensure that their lifts meet minimum platform 
dimensions and size limits on platform protrusions and gaps between the 
platform and either the vehicle floor or the ground. The standard would 
also require handrails, a threshold warning signal, and retaining 
barriers for lifts. Performance tests would be specified for wheelchair 
retention on the platform, lift strength, and platform slip resistance. 
A set of interlocks is proposed to prevent accidental movement of a 
lift and the vehicle on which the lift is installed.
    The proposed vehicle standard would require vehicle manufacturers 
who install lifts to use lifts meeting the equipment standard, to 
install them in accordance with the lift manufacturer's instructions, 
and to ensure that specific information is made available to lift 
users.
    The purpose of the two standards is to prevent injuries and 
fatalities during lift operation and to promote the uniformity of 
Federal standards and guidelines for platform lifts. We have drafted 
both with the intent of protecting lift users aided by canes or walkers 
as well as lift users seated in wheelchairs.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that 
Docket Management receives them not later than October 25, 2000.

ADDRESS: You should mention the docket number of this document in your 
comments and submit your comments in writing to: Docket Management, 
Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
    You may call the Docket at 202-366-9324. You may visit the Docket 
from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call 
Louis Molino, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, at 202-366-1833.
    For legal issues, you may call Rebecca MacPherson, Office of the 
Chief Counsel, at 202-366-2992.
    You may send mail to both of these officials at National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 
20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary
II. Background
III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
IV. Comments to the NPRM
V. Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM)
    A. Overview
    B. Need for Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
    C. Harmonization with Governmental and Industry Standards
    D. Applicability and Effective Date
    E. Different Requirements for Platform Lifts Designed for 
Installation on Vehicles Other than Buses and Large MPVs
    F. Proposed Platform Lift Requirements
    1. Threshold Warning Signal
    2. Platform Lift Operational Requirements
    a. Maximum Platform Velocity
    b. Maximum Platform Acceleration
    c. Maximum Noise Level
    3. Platform Requirements
    a. Unobstructed Platform Operating Volume
    b. Platform Surface Protrusions
    c. Gaps, Transitions and Openings
    d. Platform Deflection
    e. Edge Guards
    f. Wheelchair Retention
    g. Inner Roll Stop
    h. Handrails
    i. Platform Markings
    j. Platform Lighting
    k. Platform Slip Resistance
    l. Platform Free Fall Limits
    m. Control Systems
    n. Jacking Prevention
    o. Backup Operation
    p. Interlocks
    q. Owner's Manual Insert
    r. Installation Instruction Insert
    4. Test Conditions and Procedures
    a. Test Pallet and Load
    b. Static Load Test I--Working Load
    c. Static Load Test II--Proof Load
    d. Static Load Test III--Ultimate Load
    G. Additional Platform Lift Requirements Under Consideration
    1. Environmental Resistance
    2. Fatigue Endurance
    3. Operations Counter
    H. Proposed Vehicle Requirements
    1. Installation Requirements
    2. Owner's Manual Insert Requirements
    3. Control System
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
VII. Comments

I. Executive Summary

    We initiated this rulemaking proceeding concerning safety standards 
for platform lifts to provide practicable performance-based 
requirements and compliance procedures for the regulations promulgated 
by the Department of Transportation (DOT) under the Americans with 
Disabilities Act of 1990 \1\ (ADA) and to ensure the safety of vehicles 
equipped with those lift systems. Under our statutory authority, \2\ we 
establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) to reduce 
motor vehicle crashes and the resulting deaths, injuries, and economic 
losses. Each standard must be practicable, meet the need for motor 
vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms.\3\ Our authority 
extends to both motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Further, we 
are authorized to regulate non-operational vehicle safety (i.e., safety 
while being maintained, serviced or repaired or while being entered or 
exited) as well as operational vehicle safety (i.e., safety while being 
operated on public roads).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Pub. L. 101-336, 42 U.S.C. sections 12101, et seq.
    \2\ Formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 
currently codified as 49 USC sections 30101 et seq.
    \3\ 49 USC section 30111.
    \4\ [Reserved]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We recognize that the vast majority of the American public does not 
need to use platform lifts. We believe, however, that individuals who 
need to use lifts need to be assured that lifts are as safe as possible 
and need to be protected from the risk associated with using 
unregulated equipment. For example, we know that from 1991 to 1995, at 
least 299,734 wheelchair users were injured. 7,121 of these users were 
injured as a result of some interaction with a motor vehicle. In 1990 
the Centers for Disease Control determined that 1.411 million people in 
the United States use wheelchairs. Thus the figure of 299,734 
represents an overall injury rate among the wheelchair-using population 
of

[[Page 46229]]

slightly more than 21 percent. While only 7,121 of these people were 
injured as a result of interaction with a motor vehicle, approximately 
40% of all those injuries (2,808) occurred while the individual was 
entering or exiting the vehicle, and 26% (1,366) were the direct result 
of a lift malfunction.
    We also believe that the potential for lift-associated injuries 
will increase with time. NHTSA anticipates that more people will use 
motor vehicles equipped with lifts as the ADA requirements make 
transportation more accessible to individuals with mobility impairments 
and as the proportion of older people in the general population 
increases. As the number of lift-equipped vehicles increases, the 
number of lift-related injuries is also likely to go up. Indeed, our 
analysis has already revealed an upward trend in the number of lift-
related injuries.
    Issuing motor vehicle safety standards provides the best way to 
ensure that only lift systems that comply with objective safety 
requirements are placed in service. The proposed standards would ensure 
a level of safety and uniformity that would instill confidence in the 
user population.
    Additionally, our regulatory framework provides specific procedures 
to address quickly vehicles and motor vehicle equipment that are out of 
compliance or contain a safety defect, including a procedure that can 
be followed to remedy the situation if a problem is found.
    The costs associated with this proposal are relatively low because 
we anticipate that most lift manufacturers are already complying with 
the existing voluntary and Federal standards. Accordingly, lift 
manufacturers generally will not need to make substantial changes to 
their existing lifts, although some work may be needed to fully comply 
with the lift standard. A chart detailing which voluntary and Federal 
standards correspond to each of the requirements proposed in this 
document can be found at the end of this section.
    The proposed vehicle standard would impose no additional upgrade 
costs on the vehicle manufacturers, although operational testing may 
impose some additional costs. NHTSA anticipates that those tests would 
be relatively simple (e.g., does the threshold warning work, is there 
an excessive gap between the lift and the vehicle) and, therefore, a 
nominal additional cost. Accordingly, for the ultimate consumer, the 
increase in cost of lift systems currently in use and the proposed 
systems would be approximately $268 for smaller vehicles and $280 for 
larger vehicles.
    We are proposing requirements for lifts designed for installation 
on buses and multipurpose vehicles (MPVs) with a gross vehicle weight 
rating (GVWR) greater than 3,220 kg (7,100 lbs) which are, in some 
cases, more stringent than those for lifts designed for other vehicles. 
We believe that this is appropriate given that most of these vehicles 
are for public transit and paratransit use rather than for individual 
use and will generally be used by a larger and more varied population 
and will have much different pattern of use.
    We believe the proposed platform lift standard will be of benefit 
to lift manufacturers, as well as consumers. The proposed standard was 
drafted to include or exceed all existing government (FTA, ADA) and 
voluntary industry (e.g., SAE) standards. A lift manufacturer who 
certifies its lift to the proposed standard could have confidence that 
the lift would also meet other major U.S. standards currently in force 
without additional testing. The table below shows the source of each 
requirement in the proposed FMVSS No. 141. The reader should note that 
only five requirements were added by NHTSA that do not already exist in 
other standards. Of these five, four are based on a comment to the NPRM 
by a service transportation provider.

    Summary of Requirements in Proposed FMVSS 141, ``Platform Lifts for Accessible Motor Vehicles'' and Their
                                                  Antecedents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Requirement                                              Based on\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Threshold warning signal.........................................  SAE.
Max. platform velocity...........................................  ADA, FTA.
Max. platform acceleration.......................................  FTA, ADA, SAE.
Max. noise level.................................................  FTA.
Unobstructed platform operating volume...........................  ADA.
Platform surface protrusions.....................................  FTA, ADA.
Gaps, transitions and openings...................................  FTA, ADA, SAE.
Platform deflection..............................................  FTA, ADA, SAE.
Edge guards......................................................  FTA, ADA, SAE.
Wheelchair retention:
    Dynamic......................................................  ADA.
    Static.......................................................  FTA, SAE.
Inner roll stop..................................................  FTA, ADA.
Handrails........................................................  ADA, SAE.
Platform markings................................................  FTA.
Platform lighting................................................  FTA, ADA.
Platform slip resistance.........................................  FTA, ADA.
Platform free fall limits........................................  ADA.
Control systems..................................................  FTA, ADA.
Jacking prevention...............................................  FTA, SAE.
Backup operation.................................................  FTA, ADA, SAE.
Interlocks:
    Original NPRM 5..............................................  FTA, ADA.
    2 new ones...................................................  Comment to NPRM by service provider.
    Another 2 new ones...........................................  Logical extension of the comment.
    Crushing prevention..........................................  SAE.
Owner's manual insert............................................  New.
Installation instruction insert..................................  SAE.
Static Load Test I:
    Working load--lift must operate normally with 600 pound load.  FTA, ADA, SAE.

[[Page 46230]]

 
Static Load Test II:
    Proof load--lift must sustain a load of 1800 lbs and operate   FTA.
     normally after the load is removed. Safety Factor = 3.
Static Load Test III:
    Ultimate load--lift must sustain a load of 2400 lbs without    ADA, SAE.
     failure, but does not need to operate after removal. SF=4.
Environmental resistance for externally mounted lifts............  SAE (based on FMVSS 209).
Fatigue endurance................................................  FTA, SAE.
Operations counter...............................................  FTA (optional).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Based on'' means that the standard or regulation shown in this column incorporated a requirement for the
  named area of lift operation. The proposed NHTSA requirement may, or may not be, identical to the requirement
  in the antecedent standard.
ADA = 49 CFR part 38, Regulations promulgated by DOT to implement the transportation accessibility requirements
  of the Americans with Disabilities Act, pursuant to guidelines issued by the Architectural and Transportation
  Barriers Compliance Board.
FTA = Federal Transit Administration Guideline Specifications for Passive and Active Lifts, procurement
  guidelines.
SAE = Society of Automotive Engineers J2309, ``Design Considerations for Wheelchair Lifts for Entry to or Exit
  from a Personally Licensed Vehicle,'' an industry consensus voluntary standard, which itself is based
  primarily on the Department of Veterans' Affairs procurement requirements. The DVA now uses the SAE standard
  as an alternative to its procurement standard.

II. Background

    The ADA sweepingly endorsed the rights of persons with 
disabilities. The ADA created specific affirmative obligations on 
private entities who conduct business with the general public. Among 
these obligations is the requirement that transit and paratransit 
operators accommodate the needs of individuals with disabilities who 
wish to use the their services.
    Title II of the ADA requires newly purchased, leased, or 
remanufactured vehicles purchased by public entities, like 
municipalities and regional transit authorities, and used in fixed 
route bus systems to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals 
with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, canes, 
and walkers. Title II also requires a public entity operating a demand-
responsive transportation system to obtain accessible vehicles unless 
the system, when viewed in its entirety, provides individuals with 
disabilities with a level of service equivalent to that provided for 
individuals without disabilities. Title II further requires public 
entities operating a fixed route bus system (other than a bus system 
which provides only commuter service) to provide complementary 
paratransit and other special transportation services to individuals 
with disabilities. Title III requires that designated public 
transportation, provided by private entities, be readily accessible to 
and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who 
use wheelchairs, canes, or walkers.
    The ADA directed DOT to issue regulations to implement the 
transportation vehicle provisions in Titles II and III. Additionally, 
the ADA requires the Architectural and Transportation Barriers 
Compliance Board (ATBCB) to issue guidelines to assist DOT in 
establishing these regulations.\5\ On September 6, 1991, ATBCB 
published its final guidelines which specify that to be considered 
accessible, a vehicle must be equipped with a lift or other level 
change mechanism and have sufficient clearance to permit a wheelchair 
to reach a wheelchair securement location once it is on the vehicle. 
(56 FR 45530) ATBCB stated that ``NHTSA is the appropriate agency to 
define safety tests'' for platform lifts.\6\ On the same day, DOT 
implemented the ADA by publishing a final rule establishing 
accessibility regulations at 49 CFR part 38, Transportation for 
Individuals with Disabilities, Subpart B--Buses, Vans and Systems, and 
by incorporating and requiring compliance with the September 6, 1991 
guidelines issued by the ATBCB. (56 FR 45584) This SNPRM collectively 
refers to the ATBCB's final accessibility guidelines and DOT's final 
rule as the ``ADAAG.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 42 U.S.C. 12204.
    \6\ Throughout this document, we refer to lifts covered by the 
proposed standard as ``platform lifts.'' The proposed standards 
would not apply to ramps or devices where the disabled individual is 
transferred to a built-in mobility device. The lifts must meet the 
needs of wheelchair users and other individuals who are unable, due 
to a disability, to negotiate a vehicle's steps, e.g., individuals 
who use canes or walkers rather than a wheelchair. We have designed 
the proposed standard with the needs of all mobility-impaired 
occupants in mind.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    We published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on February 26, 
1993 proposing to create a new safety standard for buses equipped with 
lift systems. (58 FR 11562)
    In the 1993 NPRM, we proposed minimum platform dimensions and 
limits on the size of protrusions on the platform surface and gaps 
between the platform and either the bus floor or the ground. In 
addition, we proposed requiring platforms to have wheelchair retaining 
barriers or devices, handrails, and a threshold warning signal. We also 
proposed performance tests for the evaluation of lift strength, the 
ability of the lift to retain a wheelchair on its platform, and the 
platform's slip resistance. We also proposed operational and interlock 
requirements to prevent accidental movement of the lift when someone is 
aboard. Finally, we addressed platform markings, free-fall velocity, 
jacking (i.e., the continued effort of the lift motor to lower the lift 
after the lift has already contacted the ground, thereby potentially 
jacking up or raising that side of the vehicle), and platform 
deflection.

IV. Comments to the NPRM

    We received approximately 35 comments on the NPRM. Commenters 
included vehicle manufacturers, lift manufacturers, State and local 
governments, school bus contractors, ATBCB, the American Public Transit 
Association (APTA), the National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA), 
advocacy groups representing individuals with disabilities, and 
individuals.
    Most commenters, including lift and vehicle manufacturers, most 
State organizations, and advocacy groups, believed that there was a 
safety need for the proposed safety standard. However, some commenters, 
including a private bus contractor and the California Association of 
Coordinated Transportation, stated that we had not established such a 
need.
    Commenters also addressed such issues as the extension of the 
standard

[[Page 46231]]

to multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), harmonization with Federal 
and industry standards, and test procedures and requirements for slip 
resistance, the control system, handrail deflection, platform 
protrusions, platform acceleration, fatigue endurance, static load, 
single point failures, wheelchair retention devices, platform stow and 
deploy velocity, platform gaps, roll stops, and lift stowing.
    Our responses to the relevant comments are discussed below.

V. Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM)

A. Overview

    We have decided that a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking 
(SNPRM) will be beneficial for several reasons. First, the comments on 
the 1993 NPRM are now over six years old. Second, we have decided to 
propose two standards, instead of one, and to assign each of them a 
different Federal motor vehicle safety standard number: Standard No. 
141, instead of Standard No. 401, and Standard No. 142. We believe that 
two standards, one addressing the platform lift and another addressing 
the vehicle on which the lift is installed, would best protect lift 
occupants and bystanders. This two-prong approach is the same one we 
took in regulating underride guards. Under today's proposal, lift 
manufacturers would have to certify that their lifts meet the proposed 
requirements and lift installers for new vehicles would have to ensure 
that the lifts are installed according to the lift manufacturer's 
instructions. The changed standard numbers are consistent with our 
three existing categories: crash or incident avoidance in the 100 
series, crashworthiness in the 200 series, and post-crash events in the 
300 series. Third, we have expanded the proposed platform lift safety 
standard so that it would apply not only to buses, but to all motor 
vehicles sold with lifts installed. Fourth, our supplemental proposal 
also refines the initially proposed requirements and test procedures to 
reflect relevant comments and testing done since the NPRM at our 
Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) and other test facilities. For 
example, we have altered the tests for wheelchair retention, inner roll 
stops, and slip resistance and added a fatigue test and an ultimate 
load test.
    We have also changed the proposed platform lift standard's title to 
``Platform Lift Systems for Accessible Motor Vehicles'' (instead of 
``Lift Systems for Accessible Transportation''). The modified name is 
intended to more accurately reflect our authority. We are only 
authorized to regulate motor vehicles; the term ``transportation'' in 
the title could have been interpreted to apply to other transportation 
modes such as light rail. For purposes of this document, the proposed 
Standard No. 141, ``Platform Lift Systems for Accessible Motor 
Vehicles'' will be referred to as the lift or platform lift standard; 
the proposed Standard No. 142, ``Platform Lift Installations on Motor 
Vehicles'', will be referred to as the vehicle standard.

B. Need for Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

    Analysis conducted by our National Center for Statistics and 
Analysis (NCSA) to support the NPRM revealed eight wheelchair 
fatalities between 1973 and 1991 due to motor vehicle-related events, 
including two deaths involving a platform lift. These data were 
obtained from the Consumer Product Safety Commission's Death 
Certificate File. Additionally, by analyzing the CPSC's National 
Electronic Injury Surveillance System's (NEISS) accident data for a 
five-year period, NCSA determined that between 1986 and 1990, 14 
percent of the total number of wheelchair-related injuries resulting 
from motor-vehicle situations other than collisions were the result of 
a malfunctioning lift (521 cases out of 3,774). All 521 individuals 
were treated at the emergency room and released. 28.8 percent of the 
individuals (150 out of 521) sustained minor injuries, 44.3 percent 
(231 out of 521) sustained moderate injuries, and 26.9 percent (140 out 
of 521) sustained serious injuries.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Technical Note for this analysis, ``Wheelchair Occupants 
Injured in Motor-Vehicle Related Accidents'', can be found under 
Docket 91-19, Notice 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the NPRM, most commenters, including many vehicle 
and lift manufacturers, advocacy groups, and State and local 
governments, supported the proposed Federal safety standard for 
platform lifts. A few commenters claimed that no safety need had been 
shown and that too few injuries had been documented.
    Based on the available information, we have tentatively determined 
that a Federal motor vehicle safety standard for vehicles equipped with 
platform lifts will help prevent injuries and fatalities during lift 
operation. As explained above, NCSA's preliminary analysis showed 521 
persons injured by lifts between 1986 and 1990: 381 in vans and 140 in 
buses. Two deaths were associated with the use of a lift between 1973 
and 1991. Additionally, from 1991 to 1995, an estimated 7,121 
wheelchair users were injured as a result of some interaction with a 
motor vehicle.\8\ A total of 1,366 people, nineteen percent of the 
total, were injured by lift malfunction. No lift-related fatalities 
were reported during that time frame. Approximately three percent of 
the lift-related injuries from 1991 to 1995 were considered serious.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For an analysis of wheelchair/motor vehicle injuries from 
1991 to 1995 see Technical Note, ``Wheelchair Users Injuries and 
Deaths Associated with Motor Vehicle Related Incidents'', September, 
1997, located at Docket No. NHTSA-98-4511.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe there may be considerably more injuries due to 
malfunctioning lifts than the numbers suggest. Any analysis of deaths 
or injuries based on motor vehicle-incidents will necessarily 
underrepresent the scope of the problem. Since lift-related injuries 
frequently are not reported as a motor vehicle incident, no police 
report is filed. Consequently, the event is not entered in the data 
bases we access for injury and death information related to motor 
vehicles (e.g., police reported incidents from states, NASS, and FARS). 
Additionally, the injury count understates actual injuries, because it 
does not include incidents in which the injured persons were treated at 
small hospitals, emergency care centers, or doctor's offices. NEISS 
only includes injuries treated at hospital emergency centers. In 
addition, some cases in the NEISS were not included because there was 
not enough information to identify the accident as conclusively being 
related to platform lift safety.
    We anticipate that more people will use motor vehicles equipped 
with lifts as the ADA requirements make transportation more accessible 
to individuals with mobility impairments and as the proportion of older 
people in the general population increases. NCSA's analysis has already 
revealed an upward trend in the number of lift-related injuries. As the 
number of lift-equipped vehicles increases, the number of lift-related 
injuries is also likely to go up.
    In order to accurately explore the level of risk to individuals 
using lifts, one must first ascertain the size of the potential lift-
using population. We recognize that the vast majority of the American 
public does not need to use platform lifts. In 1990, the Centers for 
Disease Control conducted a survey on assistive technology devices.\9\ 
The authors of the survey determined that,

[[Page 46232]]

as of 1990, 8,487,000 people in the United States use some type of 
mobility device.\10\ Additionally, NCSA has determined that there are 
approximately 383,000 vehicles with adaptive equipment in the United 
States.\11\ This estimate is based on data from our National Automotive 
Sampling System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ LaPlante MP, Hendershot GE, Moss AJ. Assistive technology 
devices and home accessibility features: prevalence, payment, need, 
and trends. Advance data from vital and health statistics; no 217. 
Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics. 1992.
    \10\ The specific breakdown of the types of devices is as 
follows: crutch--671,000; cane or walking stick--4,400,000; walker--
1,687,000; wheelchair--1,411,000; scooter--64,000; other--254,000.
    \11\ Research Note: Estimating the Number of Vehicles Adapted 
for Use by Persons with Disabilities (12/97).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) We request comments on the size of the potential lift-using 
population. This includes individuals utilizing wheelchairs, canes, or 
walkers due to a mobility impairment or disability.
    (2) We request comments on the number of MPVs which are ramp-
equipped rather than lift-equipped. Please specify whether the MPVs are 
personally licensed vehicles or used for public or commercial 
transportation.
    (3) We request information regarding the number of platform lifts 
installed on motor vehicles since January 1, 1997. How many of those 
lifts were installed on motor vehicles by lift manufacturers?
    (4) How many of these lifts (manufactured after January 1, 1997) 
were installed (a) prior to first vehicle sale and (b) after first 
vehicle sale? How many lifts were installed by companies other than 
vehicle manufacturers?
    Lift accessibility affects a mobility-impaired population that will 
increasingly be using this equipment. We note, in this regard, that the 
ADA requires lifts on most transit vehicles manufactured after 1990. 
The lifts on these vehicles should be safe. Issuing FMVSSs provides the 
best way to ensure that only systems that comply with objective safety 
requirements are placed in service. The proposed standards would ensure 
a level of safety and uniformity that would instill confidence in the 
user population. While the ADAAG provide a good start, they establish 
few objective performance criteria. For example, S38.23(b)(6) states, 
``The platform surface shall be * * * slip resistant,'' but does not 
define slip resistance or establish how to demonstrate slip resistance.
    Additionally, our regulatory framework provides specific procedures 
to quickly address vehicles and motor vehicle equipment that are out of 
compliance or contain a safety defect, including a procedure that can 
be followed to remedy the situation if a problem is found. In contrast, 
the ADAAG provide neither a procedure for establishing the safety of a 
lift nor one for recalling and repairing lifts of a specific model that 
are found to be unsafe.
    Our decision to propose standards has support among commenters on 
the NPRM. Several commenters, including Washington State, Mobile-Tech 
and the Transportation Manufacturing Corporation (TMC), stated that one 
Federal agency should regulate all lifts. TMC stated that ``the 
industry should be able to rely on the government to provide a single 
clear set of regulations to meet the ADA.''
    (5) We seek comments as to which of the proposed requirements will 
most contribute to the reduction of injuries, and why.

C. Harmonization With Governmental and Industry Standards

    In developing both the NPRM and the SNPRM, NHTSA has examined 
existing standards and guidelines for platform lifts and sought to 
harmonize with them to the extent consistent with its statutory 
authority to establish safety standards. These existing standards and 
guidelines include the ADAAG; the set of advisory guidelines developed 
in 1986 under the sponsorship of the Federal Transit Administration 
(FTA); procurement standards developed by the Department of Veteran 
Affairs (DVA standards); \12\ school bus standards of Indiana, Arizona, 
and the Eleventh National Conference on School Transportation; the 
Canadian Standards Association; the Swedish Board of Transport; the 
British Code of Practice; and industry-recommended practices developed 
by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ VA Standard Design and Test Criteria for Safety and Quality 
of Automatic Wheelchair Lift Systems for Passenger Motor Vehicles, 
(June, 1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have incorporated many aspects of the ADAAG in its proposed 
standard because many buses are required by the ADA to be accessible. 
School buses, which are exempt from the ADA, are required to comply 
with the accessibility standards of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 
which mirror those of the ADA. Together, these buses comprise the 
largest number of buses equipped with lifts.
    We note that 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. Consistent 
with this statute, we have reviewed current industry standards, 
particularly those prepared by the SAE.\13\ In addition, we have 
reviewed current government standards, particularly those prepared by 
FTA.\14\ This SNPRM incorporates the most relevant requirements of the 
voluntary standards and guidelines such as those from the DVA, SAE, FTA 
and the ATBCB, to the extent appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Two 1995 SAE Recommended Practices apply to wheelchair 
platform lifts: J2092--Testing of Wheelchair Lifts and J2093--Design 
Considerations for Wheelchair Lifts. The SAE Standard is an update 
of the DVA procurement standard for wheelchair lifts published in 
1977 and applies to lifts installed in personally-licensed vehicles.
    \14\ Guideline Specification for Passive Lifts, Active Lifts, 
Wheelchair Ramps and Securement Devices, (1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have evaluated all of the incorporated standards and believe 
that they are practicable, objective, and meet a safety need. To the 
extent an existing standard does not meet these criteria, we have 
proposed a modified version of that standard or decided against 
incorporating that standard. Otherwise, we have incorporated existing 
standards to achieve uniformity.

D. Applicability and Effective Date

    In the 1993 NPRM, we proposed a new safety standard for new buses 
(including school buses) equipped with a platform lift. We requested 
comments on the appropriateness of applying the proposed requirements 
to MPVs and to over-the-road buses (i.e., a bus with an elevated 
passenger deck located over a baggage compartment).
    We now propose applying the platform lift safety standard to lifts 
designed for installation on any vehicle, including over-the-road 
buses, school buses and MPVs.\15\ Seventy-three percent of the injuries 
reported in the Technical Note supporting the NPRM occurred in MPVs 
rather than buses. Additionally, our analysis of motor vehicle/
wheelchair-related injuries from 1991 to 1995 indicates that 
approximately 48 percent of all injuries involved MPVs, while only 12 
percent involved buses. The majority of vehicles with lifts are MPVs. 
While not all MPV's are subject to the ADA (i.e., those used only for 
personal transport), many are, because they are used for commercial 
transport (e.g., van pools). Further, our concern for the safety of 
vehicle occupants extends beyond the ADA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Definitions of ``bus'', ``truck'', ``truck tractor'', and 
``multi-purpose passenger vehicle'' can be found at 49 CFR Part 
571.3. The definition of a ``school bus'' can be found at 49 U.S.C. 
30125. The definition of a ``motor home'' used in this document can 
be found at 49 CFR Parts 571.105 and 571.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments were requested for over-the-road buses because, at the 
time of the NPRM, the ADA had not required lifts on such vehicles, if 
privately

[[Page 46233]]

owned. On September 28, 1998 the Department of Transportation published 
a final rule which will require over-the-road buses to have lifts, on a 
graduated basis, starting in 2000.\16\ Of the commenters to the 1993 
NPRM, only Braun specifically commented on the applicability to this 
type of vehicle; it favored applying the proposed requirements to over-
the-road buses. We tentatively conclude that since these buses will 
have lifts, those lifts should be subject to this proposed standard. 
Excluding lifts on over-the-road buses from the proposed standard would 
be counter-productive to two of the proposed standard's primary 
purposes: enhancing the safety of both public and private vehicles and 
promoting the uniformity of government standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 63 FR 51669 (9/28/98).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most commenters, including bus manufacturers, lift manufacturers, 
States, and the Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) supported applying 
the requirements to lift-equipped MPVs and buses. They believed that 
all lift users should be afforded a similar level of safety. TMC stated 
that the NCSA study indicated that most wheelchair-related injuries 
involved vans. Thomas Built was concerned that excluding MPVs would 
allow a manufacturer to circumvent compliance by omitting a seat so 
that it seated only ten occupants rather than eleven, changing it from 
a bus to an MPV.
    NTEA opposed applying the lift standard to MPVs, claiming that such 
a requirement would result in an undue burden and increased costs on 
small businesses. However, most of the compliance burden would be borne 
by the lift manufacturers, none of whom objected to applying the 
requirements to MPVs. Additionally, we believe that most of the 
proposed requirements are already being met on either a volunteer or 
contractual basis under existing industry and Federal guidelines and 
standards.
    We are proposing to make the new standards, if adopted, effective 
one year after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. 
We believe that lift manufacturers generally will not need to make 
substantial changes to their existing lifts. We recognize, however, 
that some work may be needed to fully comply with the lift standard. We 
believe that a one-year lead time should provide plenty of time to 
adopt any needed changes.
    (6) We seek comment on whether an effective date of one year after 
publication of a final rule would be sufficient to allow platform lift 
manufacturers to meet the requirements of the proposed platform lift 
standard.

E. Different Requirements for Platform Lifts Designed for Installation 
on Vehicles Other Than Buses and Large MPVs

    We believe that fewer requirements may be necessary for platform 
lifts installed on MPVs than for those installed on buses. The reason 
for this is that lifts designed for MPV's have different usage patterns 
than those designed for buses. In the NPRM, we proposed a single set of 
requirements for buses and accordingly made no distinction between 
vehicle types. We did, however, seek comment on the potential 
applicability of the proposed standard on MPVs. Most commenters did not 
distinguish between applying the safety standard to MPVs used in public 
paratransit and those licensed to individuals for personal use. 
However, a few commenters, including TMC, appear to have intended their 
comments on MPV use to apply only to public paratransit cases. Comments 
were mixed about the need to differentiate the requirements based on 
vehicle type. Lift-U and Thomas Built stated that only MPVs used for 
paratransit (and not individually owned MPVs) should have to comply 
with the lift requirements. Stewart and Stevenson (a lift manufacturer) 
stated that smaller vehicles should have different requirements because 
they would have difficulty absorbing the weight of lifts used with 
larger buses. Mobile-Tech stated no differentiation should be made by 
vehicle type.
    We not only have authority under 49 U.S.C. 30111 to adopt different 
requirements for vehicles based on differences in vehicle 
characteristics, we are mandated by law to consider whether our 
requirements are ``reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the 
particular type of vehicle'' to which they apply. Pursuant to this 
authority and mandate, we are proposing requirements for lifts designed 
for installation on buses and MPVs with a GVWR greater than 3,220 kg 
(7,100 lbs) \17\ which are, in some cases, more stringent than those 
for lifts designed for all other vehicles.\18\ We believe that this is 
appropriate given that most of these larger vehicles are for public 
transit and paratransit use, rather than individual use. Since the 
lifts on these vehicles will generally be subjected to more stress and 
cyclic load and will be used by a larger and more varied population, 
more requirements as to platform size, controls, handrails and lighting 
appear appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The preamble and the regulatory text references all weights 
and measurements under the metric system with the English 
equivalents set out in parentheses. If the proposed regulatory text 
is adopted, the English equivalents will be dropped from the 
preamble of the final rule and the final regulatory text.
    \18\ The next section discusses the differences in such 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under FMVSS No. 208, we differentiate between vehicles having a 
GVWR of less than or equal to 3,851 kg (8,500 lbs) and those having a 
higher GVWR. We use this breakpoint because the higher rated trucks or 
MPVs are typically used to carry equipment or cargo (e.g., maintenance 
vehicles) and are not primarily used to transport people. However, we 
believe that a lower dividing line is appropriate for this proposal. We 
note that the majority of MPVs used for public paratransit have GVWR 
greater than 3,262 kg (7,200 lbs) (e.g., Ford E250, E350 or equivalent 
chassis). In contrast, the majority of MPVs modified and licensed to 
individuals for personal use have a GVWR less than 3,171 kg (7,000 lbs) 
(e.g., Ford E150, or equivalent chassis). Accordingly, we believe that 
dividing the vehicles into two groups, buses and MPVs over 3,220 kg 
(7,100 lbs) and all other vehicles, would adequately delineate personal 
and transit or paratransit vehicle use. We do note that where the ADA 
imposes requirements on commercial entities and those entities use a 
vehicle that weighs less than 3,200 kg (7,100lbs), the commercial 
entity would still have to meet the applicable ADA requirement.
    Among the proposed requirements that would not apply to lifts 
designed for vehicles other than buses and heavier MPVs are those for 
platform operating volume, handrails, platform lighting, inner roll 
stops, or control label lighting. In addition, if a fatigue test were 
adopted, it would be less stringent for these lifts since we anticipate 
that the lifts on these vehicles will experience fewer operating cycles 
per day. Each of these specific requirements are discussed in their 
respective sections.
    Since publishing the NPRM in 1993, we have learned that in addition 
to buses and vans, lifts are also installed in trucks, truck tractors 
(e.g., semis), trailers, and motor homes. These vehicles are typically 
used as personal vehicles. We believe that the lifts on these vehicles 
are not subjected to the greater use of lifts on buses or larger MPVs. 
Instead, the lifts installed on these vehicles are more akin to lifts 
installed on lighter MPVs than on lifts installed on vehicles intended 
for commercial transit. Additionally, individuals purchasing these 
lifts are

[[Page 46234]]

unlikely to have the resources to pay for the heavier lifts. 
Nevertheless, the interface between lift and vehicle on some of these 
vehicles could pose an unreasonable risk if the platform lifts designed 
for the vehicles were excluded from the stricter performance 
requirements contemplated for larger MPVs and buses. We believe that 
the only serious risk to safety that is not contemplated by the 
proposed requirements for lighter MPVs is the lack of a mandatory inner 
roll stop. Accordingly, lifts designed for truck tractors, trailers and 
motor homes would be subject to the same performance requirements as 
lighter MPVs except that the lifts would be required to have an inner 
roll stop. Platform lifts designed for other trucks, e.g., pick-up 
trucks, would be subject to the same performance requirements as lifts 
designed for lighter MPVs.
    (7) We request comments about the appropriateness of having less 
stringent requirements for platform lifts designed for installation on 
vehicles that have lower GVWRs, trucks, trailers, truck tractors and 
motor homes, and all motor vehicles, other than buses and heavy MPVs, 
that are presumably for individual use.
    (8) We also request comments about whether the proposed breakpoint 
of a 3,220 kg GVWR (7,100 lbs) for MPVs is appropriate, and whether 
there is any reason not to permit any of the vehicles referenced in 
question number 5 to comply with less stringent requirements.

F. Proposed Platform Lift Requirements

1. Threshold Warning Signal
    Today's proposal differs from the NPRM in that it contains a 
threshold warning signal and deletes the audible and visual deployment 
warnings of the NPRM. The deployment warnings were based on the 1992 
FTA guidelines. Since these alarms have been dropped by the FTA in its 
1997 and 1999 guidelines, we have also deleted them from the proposed 
FMVSS.
    This notice is proposing to require one signal, which would be a 
threshold warning alarm. For vehicles other than buses and MPVs with a 
GVWR greater than 3,220 kg (7,100 lb), the alarm could be either 
audible or visual. Lift systems designed for installation on buses and 
larger MPVs would need to have both a visual and an audible alarm since 
these larger vehicles are generally used for commercial transport. In 
all vehicles, the alarm would warn lift users if the lift platform were 
more than one inch below the vehicle's floor reference plane and if any 
portion of the platform threshold area \19\ were occupied by any 
portion of the lift occupant's body or any piece of equipment. 
Functionality of the warning system would be tested at the location 
indicated in figure 3, which is attached to the proposed regulatory 
text. This warning requirement is based on an SAE standard requiring a 
warning if the lift user is within 18 inches of the platform and the 
platform is more than one inch below the vehicle's floor reference 
plane. We consider this proposed warning requirement to be particularly 
important in transit and paratransit vehicles where the lift may be 
used sequentially by more than one individual. It is also important in 
any personally licensed vehicle in which the lift is fitted such that 
the user backs onto the lift from the floor of the vehicle (this 
typically occurs on lifts fitted to the rear of the vehicle). This 
proposed requirement would not apply to rotary lifts where loading 
takes place entirely over the surface of the vehicle's floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The platform threshold area is defined in the proposed 
regulatory text as the rectangular portion of the vehicle floor 
defined by moving a line, which lies on the edge of the vehicle 
floor directly adjacent to the lift platform, through a distance of 
18 inches (457 mm) in a direction perpendicular to the line 
including any portion of a bridging device that lies within this 
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reviewing the available information, we have decided to drop 
the audible and visual deployment warnings proposed in the NPRM and to 
add the threshold warning requirement based on the SAE standard.
    (9) We seek comments on whether an audible or visual threshold 
warning should be required and whether the proposed warning would 
achieve the desired purpose of avoiding injury to the lift user caused 
by an out-of-position platform.
    (10) We also seek comment on whether a minimum should be specified 
for the size or weight of an object that causes the threshold warning 
to operate and, if so, what that minimum should be.
2. Platform Lift Operational Requirements
    Compliance with several of the platform lift requirements would be 
tested in accordance with Static Load Test I which is fully discussed 
later in this document. Under this test, the lift would be tested both 
empty and with a 272 kg mass (600 lb load). As an example, this mass 
requirement is approached by two separate potential weight 
combinations: that of a 99th percentile male, weighing 109 kg (241 
lbs), with a powered wheelchair, weighing 113 kg (250 lbs), for a total 
weight of 222 kg (491 lbs); and that of a 99th percentile male in a 
manual wheelchair and an attendant (245 kg (540 lbs)). While these 
examples are below the 272 kg limit, in some cases people and 
wheelchairs will weigh more, thus justifying the limit. Additionally, 
industry standards and the ADA require a 272 kg lifting capacity. 
Testing with an empty platform would be specified to ensure that the 
lift operates properly when carrying smaller occupants.
a. Maximum Platform Velocity
    We are proposing maximum platform operating speeds for the safety 
of lift users, especially standees (e.g., individuals who use a cane or 
walker). Section S5.2.2 specifies a maximum vertical and horizontal 
velocity of the platform of 152 mm/s (6 in/s). This is the same maximum 
velocity suggested in the NPRM. We received no comments about the 
maximum velocity in comments to that document.
    We have decided to propose the 152 mm/s (6 in/s) maximum velocity 
to assure the safety of those on or near the lift and to be consistent 
with the ADAAG (49 CFR 38.23(b)(10)) and FTA guidelines (section 
2.5.11), which also allow a maximum velocity of 152 mm/s (6 in/s).
    We stated in the NPRM that a maximum speed limit was necessary for 
the safety of persons in or near the bus when the lift was being 
deployed. We were also concerned for the safety of lift users.
    In the NPRM, we also discussed, but did not propose, requirements 
for platform velocity during the stowing (folding) and deploying 
(unfolding) sequences. Based on our review of the ADA standard, we have 
decided to propose that during stowing and deploying, the lift platform 
would have a maximum vertical and horizontal velocity of 305 mm/s (12 
in/s). The purpose of this requirement, which is consistent with the 
ADA standards, is to reduce the potential injuries to bystanders and 
lift users.
    The NPRM proposed that a cycle be completed within 65 seconds. The 
SNPRM has dropped the maximum cycling time because it is not clearly 
related to safety.
    (11) We request comments about whether there is a safety need for 
velocity limits on platform stowing and deploying. Are any incidents 
known to have occurred that are directly related to the excessive 
velocity of deploying or stowing platform lifts?

[[Page 46235]]

b. Maximum Platform Acceleration
    We have decided to propose an acceleration limit of 0.3 g with both 
no load and with 272 kg (600 lbs) on the platform. The acceleration 
would be measured along axes horizontal and perpendicular to the lift 
platform. The no load condition is intended to ensure that even very 
light occupants would be protected against a sudden increase in lift 
speed, since very small children may use lifts, especially in school 
buses. By requiring compliance at any load in between the extremes, we 
intend to ensure that acceleration remains within the desired limits. 
In the NPRM, we proposed (section S5.10.3) a maximum platform 
horizontal and vertical deceleration of 0.3 g, either with no load or 
with a 600 pound load applied.
    Lift-U commented that the platform acceleration limit of 0.3 g 
should only apply when the platform is loaded with 600 pounds. The 
commenter also believed that the channel filter class specification 
(CFC) 60 from SAE J211 required the test to be performed with an 
instrumented test dummy.
    We believe that it would be inappropriate to adopt Lift-U's 
recommendation to test only when the platform is loaded. The 272 kg 
(600 lbs) mass requirement is based on a determination that this weight 
would approximate the upper end of lift users who use a powered 
wheelchair. It is unlikely that the average lift user, even in a 
powered wheelchair, would have a mass of 272 kg (600 lbs). 
Additionally, testing only at the maximum intended load level would 
fail to address the safety concerns of children in wheelchairs or 
standees, who may be subjected to greater acceleration since the lift 
would be carrying lighter loads.
    As for Lift-U's concern about having to use a test dummy because of 
the NPRM's reference to SAE J211, we note that J211 merely provides a 
frequency response specification for the filter to be used with the 
accelerometer. We do not intend to specify the use of a test dummy. 
Section S5.2.3 in this SNPRM clarifies this point and indicates that 
the accelerometer would be mounted directly to the test platform or to 
the 272 kg mass (600 lb load).
    The 0.3 g acceleration limit was originally specified by the DVA 
standard. The 0.3 g limit was developed by measuring the acceleration 
of a test dummy placed in a wheelchair when riding on a lift. The 
specification was designed to avoid platform acceleration levels that 
were frightening, uncomfortable, or potentially dangerous to a 
wheelchair occupant. Since the DVA standard was published, the 0.3 g 
acceleration limit has been incorporated into the SAE, FTA and ADA lift 
requirements (J211, section 2.5.11, and 49 CFR 38.23(b)(10), 
respectively).
    We are proposing to depart from the test procedure detailed in SAE 
J211 by specifying testing with a CFC 3 filter instead of a CFC 60 
filter. We believe a CFC 3 filter better achieves the desired result, 
which is essentially to replicate a wheelchair's damping 
characteristics. Testing performed at VRTC \20\ indicated that the CFC 
60 filter does not provide sufficient damping to eliminate extraneous 
high frequency components of the platform acceleration measurement when 
the transducer is mounted directly to the platform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Determination of Electronic Filtering for Post-Processing 
of Wheelchair Lift Acceleration Data, (July, 1996) Docket No. NHTSA-
4511.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Maximum Noise Level
    We have decided to propose establishing a maximum permissible noise 
level of 80 dBA for platform lifts.
    In the NPRM, we proposed that the maximum noise level for the lift 
be limited to 75 dBA. We believed that such a provision was necessary 
to prevent noise caused by lift operation from obscuring the 85 dBA 
warning signal, and to allow oral instructions from the transit 
operator to be heard during lift operation. This proposal was identical 
to section 2.1.7 of the FTA-sponsored guidelines.
    TMC commented that ``the task of isolating the wheelchair lift 
noise to 75 dba, is unreasonable. The bus engine runs while the lift is 
operational and the engine noise is limited by regulation to 83 dba.''
    We agree with TMC that a maximum noise level of 75 dBA is too low. 
VRTC measured sound levels at six different locations in an urban 
setting to measure ambient noise.\21\ VRTC found that the sound levels 
often exceeded 75 dBA, with the loudest location having an average of 
79 dBA. Since the ambient noise level in an urban setting may often be 
greater than 75 dBA, we believe it is reasonable to allow a lift to 
exceed this noise level. 80 dBA represents the maximum permissible 
volume of ambient noise that allows for normal communication between 
two people who are three feet away from each other.\22\ We believe that 
a maximum noise level of 80 dBA should be quiet enough to allow for 
easy communication between a lift operator and a lift passenger without 
unduly restricting lift designs. We recognize TMC's concern that bus 
engines are allowed to run at noise levels up to 83 dBA; however, the 
existence of such a regulation does not mean that bus engines actually 
run at that level, only that they can. VRTC tested urban noise levels 
at bus stops and found the ambient noise at the loudest location was 
less than 80 dBA. Accordingly, we believe a maximum level of allowable 
noise is reasonable at 80 dBA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ An Evaluation of the Proposed Wheelchair Lift Safety Test 
Procedure, (June, 1996).
    \22\ W.E. Woodson, B. Tillman, P. Tillman, Human Factors Design 
Handbook, Second Edition, McGraw, Hill, Inc. (1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (12) We request information about whether any injuries can be 
directly attributed to noise interfering with communication between the 
lift user and the vehicle's driver, the lift operator, aides, or 
bystanders.
3. Platform Requirements
 a. Unobstructed Platform Operating Volume
    We are proposing a minimum clear platform width of 724 mm (28.5 
in), on the upper surface of the platform, a minimum clear width of 762 
mm (30 in) at and between the heights of 51 mm to 762 mm (2-30 in) 
above the platform surface, and a minimum clear length of 1,219 mm (48 
in) measured from 51 mm (2 in) above the surface of the platform. These 
minimum platform size requirements are based on the ADA standards. 
Under the proposed platform lift standard, no part of the lift or bus 
(except for a required barrier on a platform edge) could intrude into 
the area above the portion of the platform that would be occupied by a 
large wheelchair at any point during its operation.
    The unobstructed platform operating volume proposed in this 
document is the same as the one proposed in the NPRM. No commenter 
addressed the issue of platform operating volume requirements.
    Unobstructed platform operating volume requirements address the 
safety of passengers in several ways. These requirements ensure that:
     Parts of the lift are not introduced into the space 
occupied by the user while the lift is in motion;
     Users do not injure themselves trying to enter lifts that 
are too small for their mobility devices; and
     Mobility device users are not left waiting at the bus stop 
because their devices would not fit on the lift.
    We have decided not to propose an unobstructed platform requirement 
for platform lifts designed for installation on vehicles other than 
buses and MPVs with a GVWR greater than 3,220 kg (7,100 lbs). We 
believe requiring all lifts to comply with the proposed requirement 
could require major vehicle

[[Page 46236]]

structural modifications of some vehicles with a lower GVWR. If so, 
lift manufacturers can address platform dimensions and recommend 
appropriate vehicles and wheelchairs without referring to a uniform 
federal regulation. We also believe that users of personally-licensed 
vehicles will work with the lift installer in purchasing a lift of an 
appropriate size for their vehicles and wheelchairs. To assist 
secondary purchasers of lift-equipped vehicles, the vehicle owner's 
manual must specify the unobstructed platform operating volume so that 
lift users will know whether their wheelchair will fit on the lift.
    (13) We request comments on our decision not to propose platform 
operating volume requirements for platform lifts designed for 
installation on vehicles other than buses and MPVs with a GVWR greater 
than 3,220 kg (7,100 lbs), but to require the manufacturer to provide 
an insert for the vehicle owner's manual that details the operating 
volume.
 b. Platform Surface Protrusions
    For vehicles over 3,200 kg (7,100 lbs) we propose that the upper 
surface of the lift platform be free from protrusions greater than 6.5 
mm (0.25 in) high, and a method for measuring the height of protrusions 
has been added since the NPRM. The purpose of this proposed requirement 
is to facilitate movement on and off the platform by prohibiting 
protrusions that constitute obstacles to wheelchair occupants and 
tripping hazards to standees. After reviewing the available 
information, we have decided to propose the same protrusion 
requirements as the ADAAG for these vehicles, and retain the 
requirement proposed in the NPRM for all other vehicles.
    ATBCB commented in response to the NPRM that the platform 
protrusion requirement proposed at that time was less stringent than 
the ADAAG.\23\ PVA requested that we follow the ADAAG requiring less 
than 6.5 mm (0.25 in) protrusions regardless of whether they are 
perpendicular to the lift surface. TMC stated that its passive lift is 
designed with a hinge in the middle of the platform that has a 25.4 mm 
(1 in) protrusion above the platform surface. It claimed that the 
platform surface has a gradual slope that never exceeds 1:8 as it 
approaches the hinge. Flxible stated that our proposals differed from 
the ADAAG, but are acceptable and do not negate ADA and FTA guidelines. 
No other manufacturer stated that they would be unable to meet the 
proposed protrusion requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The ADAAG requirement reads, ``The platform surface shall 
be free of any protrusions over \1/4\ inch high * * *''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In consideration of the comments of, and discussions with, the FTA 
and ATBCB, have changed the proposed requirement for buses and larger 
MPVs (those more likely to be subject to ADAAG and used by multiple 
people daily) to mirror the ADAAG, and we propose a method for 
measuring platform protrusions. We recognize that the proposed standard 
does not resolve TMC's concerns. However, since we received no other 
comments which indicated that the protrusion limits could not be met, 
we believe the requirements proposed today are practicable and safe. 
For all other vehicles (those used more often in private 
transportation), we continue to believe that slightly higher 
protrusions can be allowed for smooth rise without either compromising 
safety or decreasing the vehicle's accessibility as long as the 
transition between the platform and the protrusion is gradual. We 
believe that allowing protrusions to be between 6.5 mm and 13 mm (0.25-
0.5 in) in these vehicles is consistent with safety for vehicles that 
will be used by one person with one type of mobility aid. This is also 
consistent with the transition requirements described in the next 
section.
c. Gaps, Transitions and Openings
    This proposal contains several requirements dealing with gaps and 
openings in the lift platform and between the platform and other 
portions of the lift. Openings in the upper surface of the lift 
platform could be no greater than 19 mm (0.75 in). Since many platforms 
are made of open mesh, it is important that the openings be small 
enough that there is no risk of either wheelchair casters or the tips 
of a cane or walker becoming stuck in the platform surface, which can 
result in the lift user falling or being tipped out of his or her 
wheelchair. The 19 mm (0.75 in) limitation is based on the SAE 
standard.
    In the NPRM, we proposed that vertical gaps could not exceed 15.9 
mm (0.625 in) and horizontal gaps could not exceed 13 mm (0.5 in). We 
were concerned that gaps between the lift platform surface and the 
vehicle could contribute to an injury by trapping a wheelchair caster 
or the tip of a cane or other mobility device. We noted that our 
proposal was consistent with both the FTA-sponsored guidelines and 
ADAAG (36 CFR 1192.23(b)(7); 49 CFR 38.23(b)(7)).
    PVA supported the proposed gap limits, claiming that they would 
prevent wheelchair casters from dropping into gaps. Lift-U and TMC 
believed that the proposed gap requirements needed to be clarified due 
to varying lift designs.
    Based on the comments and other available information, we have 
decided to propose platform gap requirements that differ from those in 
the NPRM. In the NPRM, we made several assumptions in drafting the 
proposed gap requirements. Key among these assumptions was that the 
lift would always be attached to the side of the vehicle. We are now 
aware of some lift designs which allow for the lift to be attached to 
the rear of the vehicle. Other assumptions were that the outer barrier 
would always serve as the vehicle entrance ramp, that the outer barrier 
and inner roll stop would always be completely vertical when deployed, 
and that there would be no gaps between the barriers and the platform 
edge. The proposal in the SNPRM makes no such assumptions and allows 
for a test block to ensure that any gaps between these structures be 
limited. We believe that such a test block provides a simple, yet 
objective means of measuring gaps between the platform and its 
barriers. The NPRM also did not propose to require edge guards when 
vehicle loading took place completely within the vehicle (e.g., within 
the step well of a bus). This position fails to adequately address the 
risk from gaps between the lift platform and the interior sides of the 
vehicle; these gaps potentially lead to a greater risk of injury than 
gaps between a lift platform and edge guards attached to the platform 
because of the relative motion.
    Under the proposed requirement, no vertical surface transition 
could be more than 6.5 mm (0.25 in) at either the ground or vehicle 
level; horizontal gaps would be limited to 13 mm (0.5 in). The total 
allowable rise of any sloped surface, typically ramps or bridging 
devices, would be limited to 76 mm (3 in). The allowable slope on the 
portion of the rise between 6.5 mm and 13 mm (0.25-0.5 in) above the 
ground, platform surface or vehicle surface would be limited to a 1:2 
ratio; a 1:8 ratio would be allowed for the portion of the ramp above 
13 mm (0.5 in). This proposed requirement is consistent with the ADA 
standard for ground-level platform entrances. It matches the ground-
level entrance requirements in the NPRM, except that it adds the 
requirement that the maximum rise cannot exceed three inches.
    To facilitate entering and exiting the vehicle, the ADA, FTA and 
SAE standards require the height of the platform and vehicle floor to 
be within 15.9 mm (0.625 in) of each other and the horizontal gap 
between them be no

[[Page 46237]]

more than 13 mm (0.5 in). These requirements were originally found in 
the DVA standard. Many current lift designs use a bridging device 
between the lift and the vehicle floor. For these designs, the relative 
height and gap between the platform and the vehicle floor is not as 
important as the transitions and slopes that the users must traverse to 
enter and exit the vehicle. Accordingly, we believe that there is no 
compelling reason to have different specifications for entrance and 
exit of the platform at floor level than for entrance or exit of the 
platform at ground level. By using the ADA ground ramp specification at 
the vehicle floor level as well as the 13 mm (0.5 in) horizontal gap 
specification, we believe it would be imposing a more stringent 
requirement at the vehicle floor level than currently contemplated by 
the ADA standard. This more stringent standard should allow for an 
easier entrance into the vehicle because of less abrupt transitions.
    Gaps between the upper surface of the lift platform and either the 
outer barriers or the inner roll stops \24\ could be no greater than 
15.9 mm (0.625 in) when fully deployed. The gaps would be tested with a 
test block which would require that a block with dimensions of 15.9 x 
15.9 x 102 mm (0.625 x 0.625 x 4.0 in) not pass between any gaps. Since 
the test is a dimensional check, no force would need to be applied 
against the block. Gaps between the lift and edge guards permanently 
fixed to the ramp could not exceed 13 mm (0.5 in) throughout the range 
of lift operation. Edge guards which are an integral part of the 
vehicle may not be further than 6.5 mm (0.25 in) from the platform 
throughout lift operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Inner roll stops are barriers at the transition point 
between the lift and the vehicle. They are designed to prevent 
pinching or shearing of an occupant or a wheelchair between the 
vehicle and the lift platform when the lift moves. Outer barriers 
are located on the edge of the lift that is distant from the edge of 
the vehicle. They are designed to prevent an individual or 
wheelchair from falling or rolling off the lift when it is in motion 
or when the lift is at the vehicle's floor level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Platform Deflection
    We propose requiring that the platform angle not deviate from the 
vehicle floor by more than one degree when the platform is unloaded and 
by more than three degrees when the platform is loaded. The platform 
load for testing would have a mass of 272 kg (600 lbs), centrally 
placed on the lift. The amount of deviation would be measured 
throughout the lift cycle. This technique is consistent with the one 
used in the DVA standard that a specified deflection limit may not be 
exceeded both before and after loading. The three degree limit is 
consistent with both the FTA-sponsored guidelines (sections 2.2.5 and 
3.1.3) and the ADAAG (49 CFR 38.23(b)(9)). This proposal is designed to 
correct an assumption we made in drafting the NPRM that lifts would 
only deflect in one direction (outward). Under this proposal, platform 
deflection could not exceed the stated limits in any direction. Testing 
throughout the lift cycle is consistent with the FTA requirement that 
lifts must meet the deflection limit during the entire lift cycle.
    Under the NPRM's proposed test requirement, platform deflection 
would have been measured when unloaded and when the platform is loaded 
with a 272 kg mass (600 lbs). The difference between the two 
measurements was supposed to be less than three degrees, with a three 
degree limit allowed for the loaded platform.
    Stewart and Stevenson preferred what it termed simpler, more 
descriptive language in establishing deflection amounts of the lift 
during tests. PVA supported our proposal to limit platform deflection 
to three degrees.
    Platform deflection adversely affects the lift user's sense of 
security and balance. Additionally, excessive platform deflection could 
allow manual wheelchairs to be propelled towards the outer barrier, and 
possibly to gain sufficient momentum to pass over it. By limiting 
deflection to three degrees when loaded, the deflection angle would not 
require excessive arm strength for a wheelchair occupant to maneuver 
onto and off the platform. Additionally, by limiting the level of 
deflection in any direction, a safe platform angle would be maintained 
throughout the entire lift cycle.
    In this SNPRM, we are proposing minor modifications in the platform 
deflection requirement. First, the NPRM measured deflection in a single 
vertical plane, assuming that only the lift would deflect and then only 
directly away from the vehicle. The NPRM did not account for any roll 
of the vehicle, which could increase the overall amount of deflection, 
or for deflection of the lift towards the vehicle or in a direction 
perpendicular to its mounting location. The revised requirement would 
not allow deflection greater than three degrees in any direction. 
Second, this SNPRM would require that the platform angle be compared to 
the vehicle floor angle in both the loaded and unloaded conditions.
    (14) We request comment on whether, in addition to defining a limit 
on platform deflection with respect to the vehicle floor in FMVSS No. 
141, that platform deflection with respect to the ground be limited by 
a specific requirement in FMVSS No. 142. In effect, this limit would 
dictate the extent to which the vehicle suspension would allow the 
vehicle to roll when the lift platform is loaded. Please specify an 
appropriate value for each vehicle type on which a lift might be 
installed.
e. Edge Guards
    We propose that certain platform sides (i.e., those which parallel 
the direction that a wheelchair would travel during entry or exit) be 
equipped with edge guards.
    We have decided to propose the same edge guard requirements that 
were proposed in the NPRM. We continue to believe that such guards can 
help prevent a wheelchair from sliding off or being driven off the side 
of the platform.
    PVA supported the proposal for edge guards of 38 mm (1.5 in). Lift-
U stated that to prevent a trip hazard to ambulatory passengers the 
requirement should include the following: ``For lifts that serve as the 
vehicle steps when in the stowed position, edge guards shall not extend 
outboard beyond the lowest step riser.''
    Edge guards can prevent a wheelchair from sliding off or being 
driven off the side of the platform. We propose requiring that the edge 
guard be 38 mm (1.5 in) high, a height we believe would be sufficient 
to deflect the motion of the wheelchair and alert the wheelchair 
occupant that the wheelchair is at the edge of the platform. Edge 
guards of this height are required by both the FTA-sponsored guidelines 
(section 2.2.6.1) and the ADAAG (49 CFR 38.23(b)(5)).
    (15) We request comments on whether any existing lifts have edge 
guards that extend beyond the lowest step riser when the lift, in a 
stowed position, converts into vehicle steps. Do such edge guards 
create a tripping hazard when the lift is stowed?
f. Wheelchair Retention
    This notice proposes that lifts be equipped with a wheelchair 
retention device that can sustain a direct force of 7,117 N (1,600 lbs) 
and can keep a wheelchair in an upright position throughout the range 
of lift operation. It is anticipated that most wheelchair retention 
devices would consist of an outer barrier that is permanently affixed 
to the lift platform.
    In the NPRM, we proposed a wheelchair retention requirement that 
was patterned after the ADA standard. (49 CFR 38.23(b)(5)) We reasoned 
that there is a potential for severe injury

[[Page 46238]]

because a wheelchair falling off a platform could drop as much as three 
feet. To allow manufacturers to pursue new designs, we proposed 
requiring ``a means of retaining a wheelchair'' rather than requirement 
that might be more design-restrictive.
    In the NPRM, we specified a performance-related dynamic test 
procedure to evaluate wheelchair retention. Among the proposed test 
conditions were testing with a specific wheelchair (the Invacare Ranger 
II), using test loads representing 5th percentile females and 95th 
percentile males, using ballast, and requiring a test impact velocity 
of 1.8 m/s (4 mph). We proposed pass/fail criteria based on retention 
of the wheelchair on the platform with the wheelchair upright and 
resting on its wheels. We requested comments on the merits of a dynamic 
test versus a static test such as in the FTA-sponsored guidelines for 
active lifts (section 3.1.6.2, Option B). We also requested comments on 
how this static test could be applied to retention systems which do not 
make use of an outer barrier.
    TMC favored a static test over the proposed dynamic wheelchair 
retention test. It stated that the standard proposed in the NPRM is not 
a design standard and would not give reproducible results. Analytical 
Engineering stated that the wheelchair retention specifications should 
be amended so that a reasonable equivalent static load can be applied 
through a set of standard wheelchairs or a similar load apparatus. 
Braun favored the dynamic outer barrier test, claiming that tests 
cannot be duplicated by static testing. Thomas Built, Lift-U, and the 
Florida Department of Education also favored dynamic testing.
    We have decided to propose adding a 7117 N (1,600 pound) static 
overload requirement, in addition to the NPRM's dynamic impact test for 
wheelchair retention. This static load requirement (S5.5.7.3) is 
consistent with the SAE and DVA Standards. Testing at VRTC \25\ has 
shown that the dynamic impact test alone is insufficient to measure a 
restraining device's structural integrity because the load it applies 
to the barrier begins and ends in a fraction of a second and does not 
achieve a 7,117 N (1,600 lbs) level. We believe that having both a 
dynamic impact and static test on the wheelchair retention device would 
be complementary since they test for different problems. (The static 
test only tests for structural integrity, while the dynamic test 
ensures that the wheelchair (especially a powered chair) cannot climb 
over the barrier.) We note that even though the SAE and DVA standards 
have only a static load requirement, they also specify that the 
wheelchair retention device must be an outer barrier with a minimum 
height of 76 mm (3 in). In order to avoid specifying a particular 
design, the SNPRM proposes the dynamic test to ensure the wheelchair 
would be kept on the lift if the wheelchair were driven into the 
wheelchair retention device. For outer barriers, which are the most 
common wheelchair retention device, these failure modes include 
climbing over and pushing down the barrier. By contrast, the static 
overload requirement provides a means of determining whether the 
wheelchair retention device has a sufficient design factor of safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Further details of this testing can be found in report, 
Wheelchair Retention Device Impact Test Analysis, (July, 1996) 
Docket No. NHTSA-4511.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on testing at VRTC, \26\ we have decided to propose certain 
revisions to the test procedure for wheelchair retention (S6.4.3). We 
have added proposed text to clarify that the test device, representing 
a motorized wheelchair, must be under its own power when impacting the 
wheelchair retention device. We believe that this modification more 
accurately reflects the real world, particularly in determining if the 
test device could go over an outer barrier. The proposed impact speeds 
have also been changed to match more closely the speeds a powered 
wheelchair is capable of achieving. The test device would be set up so 
the foot rests, at their lowest point, have a height one inch below the 
barrier. This would allow the front of the foot rest to clear the 
barrier; this tends to raise the wheelchair upon impact with the 
barrier, causing higher barriers to be climbed. The test would be run 
with no load in the wheelchair and with the lift platform level with 
the ground. The testing at VRTC found this configuration to be the 
worst case scenario in relation to the height of barrier climbed. The 
testing also indicated that a load in the wheelchair and inclination of 
the lift platform contributed to the wheelchair tipping over the 
barrier. The modified impact test procedure is designed to avoid this 
failure mode which cannot be prevented by the traditional outer barrier 
designs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should be noted that the selection of this test device should in 
no way be interpreted as an indication that only mobility aids fitting 
such description may be safely carried. NHTSA recognizes that all types 
of mobility aids including all designs of manual and powered 
wheelchairs, scooters, and other devices are used as seats on motor 
vehicles.
    A new dynamic requirement is being proposed for rotary lifts, which 
are loaded at the vehicle level while the lift is inside the vehicle 
(S.5.5.7.2). These types of lifts are typically referred to by the 
industry as rotary lifts because the platform rotates out of the 
vehicle with its plane parallel with the vehicle floor. The direction 
of ground level loading is parallel to the vehicle's side rather than 
perpendicular to it. Rotary lifts usually have outer barriers on both 
ends of the platform which are perpendicular to the direction of 
loading. The new test procedure for rotary lifts (S6.4.4) would assess 
the wheelchair retention device on both sides of the platform at a 
point in the lift operation between the ground and vehicle floor.
    Instead of proposing a specific wheelchair model, we have decided 
to propose the critical dimensions, configuration and components 
necessary to define a wheelchair with sufficient specificity to ensure 
that any wheelchair used for testing purposes would perform 
equivalently in the dynamic impact of the wheelchair retention device. 
These parameters include the center of gravity, mass, wheel size and 
wheel type, axle separation, frame configuration, seat type and 
footrest design. The proposed parameters are consistent with several of 
the most popular wheelchairs currently being produced.\27\ Should there 
be a significant change in wheelchair design, these criteria would have 
to be changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Further detail on the selection of parameters for the test 
wheelchair can be found in report, Determination of Center of 
Gravity of Cross-Bar Framed Power Wheelchairs, (July, 1996) Docket 
No. NHTSA-4511.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

g. Inner Roll Stop
    We propose requiring an inner roll stop to prevent a wheelchair 
from rolling off the platform's inner edge. For arc lifts, i.e., lifts 
which move in arcing motion from vehicle edge to a distance away from 
the vehicle edge during operation, this device prevents the lift 
occupant from falling off the inner edge. For all lifts, it prevents 
injuries due to pinching and shearing of the occupant's legs or feet 
between the platform and the vehicle. For elevator lifts, i.e., lifts 
which move vertically during operation, it is possible for the vehicle 
wall below the wheelchair lift entry door to perform the function of 
the inner roll stop.
    In the NPRM, we proposed a static test, noting that we had no 
information about any incidents involving a failure of the inner roll 
stop to retain a wheelchair on the platform. We further

[[Page 46239]]

noted that the possible scenarios appear to involve less risk of 
serious injury than if a wheelchair were to fall off the outer edge of 
the platform. The NPRM's proposed inner roll stop test was based on the 
FTA-sponsored guidelines (section 3.1.6.2), modified by specifying the 
length of time that the load is applied and the amount of permissible 
deflection.
    The NPRM allowed the deployment of outer barriers or inner roll 
stops when occupied by a user or mobility aid. AATP and Alameda-Contra 
Costa Transit District recommended that barriers not be allowed to rise 
when occupied. Alameda commented that a wheelchair user had been 
injured when her chair flipped over due to the caster being on the 
outer barrier when it began to deploy. The agency has decided to 
propose a requirement in the section on interlocks (S5.11.2.7-8) to 
reduce the likelihood of this occurring.
    Thomas Built believed that while an inner roll stop should be 
required, the requirement should depend entirely on the lift 
configuration. For instance, with its elevator lift, the inner roll 
stop is inherent to the lift design, so a separate stop is unnecessary. 
Stewart and Stephenson stated that a deployable inner roll stop (or 
inner barrier) should be a part of all lifts.
    We believe that the new proposal, along with its associated test 
procedure (S6.5), is more comprehensive and representative of the real 
world than the NPRM. It both assures adequate strength for the roll 
stop and more clearly specifies a test to determine if the roll stop 
prevents pinching.
    We have decided to propose a two part requirement (S5.5.8.3). 
First, to ensure an inner roll stop has adequate strength, the proposed 
regulation would require the inner roll stop to prevent the front 
wheels of a wheelchair from passing over the inboard edge of the 
platform when it is at ground level. This would be tested by impacting 
the roll stop with a wheelchair. Second, the roll stop would have to 
prevent pinching of the wheelchair between the platform and any other 
structure throughout the range of passenger operation. This would be 
tested by placing a wheelchair on the platform and attempting to move 
it toward the roll stop as the platform is raised.
    We have decided to propose requiring the inner roll stop for all 
lifts designed for installation all vehicles over 3,220 kg (7,100 lbs) 
GVWR. The inner roll stop would not be required for lifts designed for 
vehicle under this GVW rating. However, if one were not supplied for 
those vehicles, the vehicle owner's manual and the operating 
instructions would be required to specify that when the lift is loaded 
at ground level, the wheelchair must face outward. Lack of an inner 
roll stop is consistent with the SAE standard and current lift designs 
on the market for personally-licensed vehicles. Due to the small size 
of many lifts in personally-licensed vehicles, the wheelchair must face 
away from the vehicle to fit on the platform. It is unlikely that 
wheelchair or scooter users in this orientation would be pinched 
between the vehicle and the platform. It is also unlikely that multiple 
mobility device users would use a lift in a personal vehicle. 
Consequently, we believe that there is no need to require the inner 
roll stop in this instance. Likewise, the rear wheels are unlikely to 
pass over the edge of the platform without first impacting the side of 
the vehicle due to their size. We are not proposing to exempt lifts 
designed for truck tractors, trailer, motor homes, or other larger 
vehicles typically used only by individuals from the inner roll stop 
requirement, because we are concerned that the rear wheels of a 
wheelchair could pass over the edge of the platform without first 
impacting the vehicle, given the distance of the vehicle's 
undercarriage from the ground.
    (16) We request comments on whether there are any platform lifts 
designed for installation on vehicles under 3,220 kg (7,100 lbs) which, 
when used appropriately with compatible wheelchairs, allow the 
wheelchair occupant to be pinched between the vehicle and the lift.
h. Handrails
    We have decided to propose that handrail displacement be limited to 
25 mm (1 in) when a force of 445 N (100 lbs) is applied and to 102 mm 
(4 in) when a force of 1,112 N (250 lbs) is applied. We believe that it 
is more appropriate to test at two force levels than at a single force 
level of 445 N (100 lbs). The 445 N (100 lbs) force's purpose is to 
assure that the handrail is stable and has adequate clearance around 
it. The 1,112 N (250 lbs) force's purpose is to assure that the 
handrail is sufficiently strong to prevent catastrophic failure.
    In the NPRM, we proposed requiring lifts to have movable handrails. 
The NPRM specified such characteristics as the handrails' length (203 
mm (8 inches)) and a maximum allowable deflection of 3.2 mm (0.125 in) 
(i.e., ability to withstand a 100 pound force).\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Handrail displacement consists of three parts: (1) 
looseness in the handrail's components at the attachment point to 
the platform, (2) deformation of the handrail components due to 
applied load, and (3) deformation of the lift platform where the 
handrail is attached.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ricon commented that the requirement of a maximum handrail 
deflection of 3.2 mm (0.125 in) while under a load of 445 N (100 lbs) 
``is not consistent with current industry practice nor is it practical 
in terms of the wheelchair lift design environment.'' The commenter 
reported measuring handrail deflections of 45 to 51 mm (1.75-2.0 in) 
when subjected to 334 N (75 lbs) applied load. Ricon recommended a 
displacement limit of 32 mm (1.25 in) with a 334 N (75 lb) applied 
load.
    We believe Ricon's recommendation is too lenient. We agree, 
however, that the requirement proposed in the NPRM may have been too 
stringent. We believe that the allowable displacements proposed in this 
SNPRM are achievable goals for a well designed handrail. Handrails 
assist passengers in moving on and off the platform, provide a sense of 
security to occupants during lift operation, and help prevent lateral 
movement of wheelchairs. ADAAG require movable handrails for all lifts 
(49 CFR 38.23(b)(13)).
    In evaluating handrail displacement due to applied load, we assumed 
a U-shaped handrail with a maximum height of 965 mm (38 in) and tube 
diameter of 38 mm (1.5 in). We further assumed that the handrail is 
made of 1010 hot-rolled steel with a wall thickness of 1.6 mm (0.0625 
in). A load applied perpendicular to the vertical plane of the handrail 
at the top would yield the maximum displacement. We also assumed that 
the handrail is cantilevered or rigidly attached to the lift platform 
at its base. The displacement of the handrail under these conditions 
can be represented by equation (1), which is half of the displacement 
of a single cantilever beam.
    Equation One: x = (PL\3\)/(6EI)
    P = Applied Load
    L = Distance from base to applied load = 0.946 m (37.25 in)
    E = Modulus of Elasticity of handrail material = 20x10\10\ Pa 
(29x10\6\ psi)
    I = Moment of inertia of handrail cross-section
    The moment of inertia of a hollow tube is given in equation (2).
    Equation Two: I = (D\4\-d\4\)/64
    D = Tube outer diameter = 0.0381 m (1.5 in)
    d = Tube inner diameter = 0.0349 m (1.375 in)
    Substitution of values into equations (1) and (2) results in a 
displacement of x = 10.3 mm (0.41 in) for a 445 N (100 lb) force, an 
amount that exceeds the

[[Page 46240]]

NPRM's proposed limit of 3.2 mm (0.125 in).
    A real-world handrail design would not be as rigid as a cantilever 
beam because the handrail is attached to the lift platform which would 
deform when loaded. It is difficult to estimate the displacement caused 
by deformation of the platform since it is design dependent. However, 
any deformation at the platform attachment point would have an even 
greater effect at the opposite end of the handrail. Thus, the actual 
displacement due to applied load could be much greater than calculated 
from the deformation of the handrail alone.
    There are several problems with estimating displacement caused by 
any looseness in the handrail components at the point of attachment. 
Such a measurement would be both design and construction dependent as 
well as being affected by wear in specific components. Any looseness at 
the point of attachment to the lift platform would be multiplied at the 
distal end of the handrail.
    In tentatively selecting the displacement limit for the 445 N (100 
lb) force, we have assumed that the components of displacement caused 
by the deformation of the handrail and the deformation of the lift 
platform each cause 10.2 mm (0.4 in) of displacement. We further assume 
that the component of displacement due to looseness in the handrail 
contributes half as much to the total displacement. Thus, the proposed 
displacement limit is set to a value of x = 25 mm (1.00 in).
    We took a different approach to determine the displacement limit at 
the 1,112 N (250 lb) force level. At this force level, it is possible 
that the yield strength of handrail components may be exceeded. 
Therefore, while it is acceptable for the handrail to permanently bend, 
it would be impermissible for it to break. With the yield strength of 
the material exceeded, equation (1) is no longer valid. The requirement 
for displacement must be sufficient to assure that the handrail has not 
fractured in a catastrophic way. The displacement for the 1112 N (250 
lb) force is, therefore, set at x = 102 mm (4 in).
    We note that handrails would not be required for lifts designed for 
vehicles other than buses and MPVs with a GVWR greater than 3,220 kg 
(7,100 lbs). While handrails are important in public transit where 
there may be standees on the lift platform, lifts in personally 
licensed MPVs, trucks, truck tractors, or motor homes are usually 
occupied each time by the same wheelchair user. Additionally, a 
wheelchair user may be unfamiliar with the lift on a public transit 
vehicle, leading to a greater risk of injury if a support mechanism is 
not provided. However, unfamiliarity should not be a problem with the 
lifts installed on personally-owned vehicles. A user who desires a 
handrail on the lift installed in his personal vehicle has the option 
of purchasing a lift equipped with one.
i. Platform Markings
    NHTSA tentatively concludes that it is appropriate to require lifts 
on buses and MPVs with a GVWR over 3,220 kg (7,100 lbs) to be equipped 
with platform markings. We are proposing platform markings to provide 
greater visibility for the edges of the lift, thus reducing the 
potential for injuries. Throughout the range of operation, all platform 
edges, the visible edge of the vehicle floor or bridging device, and 
any designated standing areas would be outlined with markings at least 
one inch wide and of a color that contrasts with the color of the rest 
of the platform by 60 percent. These requirements are based on the FTA-
sponsored guidelines (section 2.2.9).
    In the NPRM, which proposed the same requirements (for buses fitted 
with lifts) without specifying the degree of color contrast, NHTSA 
requested comments about two alternate methods of designating the 
amount of contrast required. Under the first alternative, the lift 
would be marked with a contrasting color or shade observable with the 
unaided eye from 3.05 meters (10 ft). Under the second alternative, the 
lift would be marked with a contrasting color or shade with at least 70 
percent contrast, defined as follows:

Contrast = 100*((L1-L2)/L1)

where:
    L1 = luminance in footlamberts of the lighter color or shade, 
and
    L2 = luminance in footlamberts of the darker color or shade.

    While Lift-U and Iowa stated that platform marking requirements 
were not necessary, PVA and Braun supported such requirements. Several 
other commenters addressed specific aspects of the marking and 
illumination requirements. All American Transit stated that the 
designated standing area should be 305 mm to 330 mm (12-13 in) wide 
with a solid contrasting color band running laterally across the lift. 
It also stated that 15 different color patterns and contrasting color 
shades do not comply with NHTSA's 70 percent contrast alternative. 
Analytical Engineering favored the 70 percent contrast alternative, but 
requested clarification about whether the source of illumination was 
natural or artificial. Flxible stated that it uses white or yellow 
platform markings which meet ADA contrast criteria and that the mat 
area is always black. Flxible suggested allowing either footprints or a 
boxed perimeter area to designate the lift standing zone. Braun and 
Lift-U favored specifying a degree of contrast with a test procedure 
that would involve testing the degree of contrast in platform markings 
with the unaided eye from ten feet. Iowa recommended specifying a 
single color to keep costs low. Florida stated that the degree of 
contrast for platform perimeter markings should be specified and that 
only the perimeter should be marked. TMC stated that the degree of 
color contrast on the standing area of the platform should be left to 
the judgment of the lift manufacturer and/or transit provider.
    Based on our continued belief that platforms should be marked, we 
are proposing the same platform marking information as in the NPRM. The 
agency believes marking the platform surface, as well as any roll stops 
and retention devices contributes to the safety of lift users because 
they will be able to accurately gauge the lift's perimeter both during 
daylight and when the lift is illuminated. One minor change to the NPRM 
is that rather than proposing footprints, the standing area would be 
outlined. NHTSA is proposing alternative number two, with a color 
contrast of 60 percent. We have decreased the amount of color contrast 
proposed in the NPRM because, based on testing at VRTC, we believe 
significantly more contrast combinations will be able to satisfy a 
contrast requirement of 60 percent and that there is no diminution of 
safety.
j. Platform Lighting
    NHTSA tentatively concludes that it is appropriate to require lifts 
on buses and MPVs with a GVWR over 3,220 kg (7,100 lbs) to be equipped 
with lighting. We are concerned that without such lighting, a lift user 
could be injured in poor light conditions. We believe that the lighting 
from the vehicle's interior would be insufficient to illuminate the 
lift. Under the proposed standard, based on the FTA guidelines, the 
vehicle would have sufficient lighting to provide at least 54 lumens 
per square meter (5 lm/ft\2\) of illuminance on all portions of the 
lift platform throughout the range of operation. At ground level, all 
portions of the lift's unloading ramp would be required to have at 
least one lumen per square foot of illuminance.
    The proposed lighting requirements would apply to all lifts 
designed for installation on buses, including school

[[Page 46241]]

buses, and MPV over 3,220 kg (7,100 lbs).
    In the NPRM, we decided not to propose a lighting requirement, even 
though the FTA-sponsored guidelines and ADAAG contained such 
requirements. We stated that even though lighting is an important 
safety feature at night time or during times of low ambient light, this 
may be one area that does not need to be covered by both the ADA 
standards and a safety standard. Any bus required to be accessible by 
the ADA will have illumination for the lift. We believed that the only 
lift-equipped vehicles which will not be subject to the ADA are school 
buses.
    We requested comments about whether there should be a lighting 
requirement for school buses.
    Thomas, Iowa, and PVA supported a lighting requirement for both 
lift operation and lift control illumination, because buses operate at 
night. Washington State stated that the lighting requirement should be 
uniform for all vehicles. In contrast, St. Paul Schools stated that 
lights should not be required because the light from the interior of 
the bus is sufficient to light the lift.
    We have tentatively decided not to apply the lift lighting 
requirements to lifts designed for vehicles other than buses and MPVs 
with a GVWR of greater than 3,220 kg (7,100 lbs). The NPRM did not 
contemplate a distinction between lighter and heavier MPVs. However, 
the agency notes that the current industry standard for lifts in 
personally-licensed vehicles (SAE J2093) does not require lighting. 
Moreover, users of personally-licensed vehicle are typically familiar 
with the use of their lifts and in many cases the user is the operator. 
These individuals can have lighting installed if they believe it is 
necessary.
k. Platform Slip Resistance
    A slip resistant platform surface is important to reduce the 
potential for injuries for both wheelchair and non-wheelchair lift 
users. The FTA-sponsored guidelines (section 2.2.2) and the ADAAG (49 
CFR 38.23(b)(6)) specify that the platform surface should be slip 
resistant. NHTSA proposes that the lift platform surfaces have a static 
coefficient of friction of at least 0.65 when tested, while wet, in any 
direction. The test procedure for testing slip resistance is based on 
the ANSI/RESNA WC-13 test procedure.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Evaluation of ANSI/RESNA WC/13 to Determine the Coefficient 
of Friction of wheelchair Lift Platforms, (July, 1996), Docket No. 
NHTSA-4511.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The coefficient of friction would be tested by wetting the platform 
surface in the manner prescribed in the standard. Testing would occur 
within 30 seconds of wetting the platform surface with distilled water.
    The proposed test procedure differs completely from the one 
proposed in the NPRM. The previously proposed test called for the 
equivalent of a coefficient of friction of not less than 0.6. Instead 
of specifying the requirement in terms of coefficient of friction, we 
proposed a surrogate requirement whose satisfaction by a platform 
surface would be equivalent to its compliance with this coefficient of 
friction. We believed that the 30 degree value required under that test 
was consistent with the 0.6 coefficient of friction. The agency 
requested comments on the merits of both the test proposed and other 
methods of measuring surface friction.
    Commenters stated that the test was too costly and cumbersome since 
it required testing with three separate wheelchairs and because no 
wheelchair could remain upright when positioned on a platform that was 
angled 30 degrees.
    We believe that the commenters' concerns were valid since many 
wheelchairs will tip over at any angle greater than seventeen degrees. 
Since the originally proposed test was impractical, the SNPRM proposes, 
with some modification, an established voluntary industry standards 
test.
l. Platform Free Fall Limits
    This proposal would limit the free fall velocity of a failing lift 
system to 305 mm/s (12 in/s) as the result of a single-point failure. 
Additionally, any single-point failure could not change the lift 
platform's angular orientation by more than two degrees in any 
direction. These two limitations would need to be met when the lift is 
under its own power. The requirements proposed today differ from the 
one in the NPRM only in the addition of a maximum allowance in the 
change of platform angle due to a single-point failure of the lift 
system.
    Commenters on the NPRM had stated that they believed it was 
impossible to protect against multi-system failures of the lift system. 
NHTSA tentatively agrees with this assessment and has accordingly made 
the platform requirement on the change in angle applicable only to 
single-point system failures.
    We believe that a free fall speed in excess of 305 mm/s (12 in/s) 
and excessive change in platform angle could result in serious injury 
to lift occupants. We believe the requirement is now consistent with 
the ADA standard which specifies that no single-point failure may cause 
an occupant to be dropped.
m. Control Systems
    New requirements for the control panel are being proposed today. 
The new requirements would still require that the controls be clearly 
marked in English, but otherwise differ substantially from a panel 
similar to the one illustrated in the NPRM.
    The new proposal differs significantly from the NPRM because the 
original proposal was deemed too design restrictive. The new proposal 
should allow for all types of controls on all types of lifts.
    Concerns were raised in response to the NPRM that many lift 
operators may have a limited command of English. NHTSA recognizes this 
as a potential problem and considered using visual icons to explain 
appropriate lift use. Such symbols, however, may only complicate any 
potential problem since there is no universal system of icons which 
apply to the required lift functions. We believe that individuals with 
limited English can be properly trained on how to operate the lift and 
to recognize the few words required for the control panel.
    Under this proposal, a vehicle with a platform lift system would be 
required to have a minimum set of switches. More switches could be 
provided at the discretion of the manufacturer, but those listed below 
would be the required minimum.
    The system must have a switch which can activate the control 
system. This would be marked as the ``power switch''. The system would 
also have a switch used to move the lift from a stowed position to the 
vehicle floor loading position (marked either ``deploy'' or 
``unfold''), a switch to lower the lift platform (marked ``down'') and 
to raise the lift (marked ``up''), and a switch to move the lift from 
the vehicle floor loading position to a stowed position (marked 
``stow'' or ``fold''). The characters would be at least one inch in 
height to allow for easy viewing and, in buses and MPVs over 3,220 kg 
(7,100 lbs), would be illuminated when the vehicle's headlights are on. 
All functions in the control system would be required to be activated 
in a sequential fashion so that no two functions could be performed at 
the same time. The controls could be activated through the use of one 
or more switches. To avoid confusion, we would like to point out that a 
switch commonly called a ``rocker switch'' is, in fact two switches, 
one at either end of the rocker. Hence a rocker switch with ``up'' on 
one end and ``down'' on

[[Page 46242]]

the other would meet the requirement for a switch for each of those 
functions.
    On lifts designed for installation in buses and on MPVs over 3,200 
kg (7,100 pounds), all controls would be required to be located 
together in an area where the lift operator has an unobstructed view of 
the lift and any occupants at all times. However, additional power 
switches could be installed in another location to protect against 
inadvertent activation of the lift system. The requirement that all 
controls be located together is proposed to address the following 
concerns:
     A lift operator should be able to immediately appraise all 
the available controls with the assurance that there are no other 
controls in a different location.
     A single set of controls would prevent the inadvertent 
operation of the platform lift by a second person.

This requirement is not proposed for MPVs under 3,200 kg and the other 
vehicle types typically used as personal vehicles, because these lifts 
must be operated by the user and hence controls for different functions 
must be available in different locations. For example, ``on'', 
``fold'', and ``unfold'' may be located at the vehicle driver's 
position and/or near the lift's doorway, while ``up'' and ``down'' may 
need to be located on the lift itself. This presents no safety hazard 
to someone who is both the lift operator and its passenger and who is 
familiar with its operation through daily use.
    Simple instructions, including instructions on how to operate the 
lift's back-up system, would be provided near the controls and would be 
in English. This requirement would not preclude a manufacturer from 
additionally providing instructions in a language other than English.
    The agency is aware that lift systems on personally-licensed 
vehicles are commonly equipped with remote control systems which use 
fewer than four switches and have no ``power'' switch. These systems 
are powered at all times. We are considering exempting lifts designed 
for installation on vehicles other than buses and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles with a GVWR greater than 3,200 kg (7,100 lbs) from 
the control requirements, however we have several safety concerns about 
the controls currently available. The agency is seeking comment on 
those control systems to help us address those concerns.
    Any single-point failure in the control system would not prevent 
operation of the vehicle's interlocks.
    (17) NHTSA requests comments on whether there are icons for lift 
operation adopted by voluntary standards groups or by the lift 
industry.
    (18) NHTSA requests comments on whether, absent industry-accepted 
icons, pictographs depicting proper lift operation would be helpful or 
practicable.
    (19) NHTSA requests comments on whether commenters have 
experienced, or know of instances involving, inadvertent lift 
deployments, or other unsafe situations, which would not have occurred 
had the user needed to first switch on the power system?
    (20) NHTSA requests comments on whether commenters have 
experienced, or know of instances involving, inadvertent lift 
deployments, or other unsafe situations, that were the result of 
different switches for opening doors, unfolding lift platforms, or 
lowering the lift platform to the ground?
    (21) NHTSA requests comments on whether application of the control 
requirements described above, and given in S5.7 of the proposed 
regulatory text, would result in undue hardship to the users of lifts 
in private vehicles or increase the cost to manufacture the control 
systems for lifts in those vehicles?
n. Jacking Prevention
    Jacking, or the continued effort of the lift mechanism to lower the 
lift platform after it has already contacted the ground, can cause 
serious damage to a lift system. This continued force on the ground 
leads to the vehicle lifting from the ground, much like a tire jack 
raises a vehicle. Such damage, while not harmful to the individual 
using the lift at the time, can result in an unsafe condition for 
future lift occupants. Accordingly, NHTSA proposes that the lift's 
control system or design prevent the raising of any portion of the 
vehicle by the lift system if continued force is exerted in a downward 
motion on a lift that is at its ground level loading position. This 
requirement would not apply to lift systems that are being operated in 
their manual back-up mode.
    This proposal is unchanged from the one in the NPRM and is adopted 
from the FTA guidelines (section 2.5.6)
o. Backup Operation
    Under this proposal, a lift system would be required to have a 
manually-operated backup system that allows for full use of the lift in 
the event of a power failure. The backup would allow for full lift use 
so that any occupants in the vehicle or on the lift could be safely 
transported off the vehicle or lift and the lift could then be stowed 
so that vehicle movement is not impeded. Operating instructions would 
be located near the control panel and in the vehicle owner's manual. 
This requirement, which is essentially unchanged from the one proposed 
in the NPRM, is consistent with the FTA guidelines (section 2.5.7) and 
the ADAAG (49 CFR 38.23 (b)(3), which require ``an emergency method of 
operation.''
p. Interlocks
    Interlocks are electrical or mechanical devices which prevent the 
operation of a device until a particular event has occurred. The use of 
interlocks in a lift system is designed to prevent injury due to 
mechanical or human error. The interlock system proposed today consists 
of ten separate interlocks.
    Five of these interlocks were proposed, in some form, in the NPRM 
and are consistent with FTA guidelines (section 2.5.8) and ADAAG (49 
CFR 38.23(b)(2) and 38.23(b)(5)).
    The first interlock would prevent the forward and rearward motion 
of the vehicle when the lift is not in its stowed position (S5.11.2.1). 
This is to prevent injury to a lift passenger from the vehicle's 
beginning to move while the lift is occupied and also to prevent 
injuries to passengers and bystanders and property damage that could be 
caused by moving the vehicle with the lift deployed. The second 
interlock would prevent the deployment of the lift system unless the 
vehicle's lift access door is open and some affirmative action has been 
taken to prevent the vehicle from moving (S5.11.2.2). This action may 
be as simple as setting the parking brake.
    Two separate interlocks are proposed to prevent movement of the 
lift, either up or down, if the lift's inner roll stop (S5.11.2.4) or 
its wheelchair retention device (S5.11.2.5) is not deployed. These two 
requirements are designed to keep lift occupants secure during lift 
movement.
    The lift must be incapable of stowage if any portion of the lift 
platform is occupied by either a portion of the lift user's body or a 
mobility aid (S5.11.2.3). The interlock proposed in the NPRM only 
prevented platform stowage when the lift was occupied by an object 
weighing 50 pounds or more. It did not account for very small occupants 
who may use the lift. A new interlock is being proposed that would 
prevent the stowage of a wheelchair retention device unless the lift 
platform is within three inches of the ground (S5.11.2.6). This 
interlock should prevent serious injury due to the retention device 
prematurely releasing a wheelchair while the lift platform is a 
considerable distance from the ground. The agency is not proposing to 
add an interlock

[[Page 46243]]

addressing the possible stowage of an inner roll stop. Lift 
manufacturers would already have to satisfy an operational test in 
which the inner roll stop would prevent any pinching or shearing. 
Additionally, we are not aware of any injuries caused by a prematurely 
stowing inner roll stop and, therefore, an interlock may constitute an 
unnecessary expense.
    Two additional interlocks were added to this proposal based on 
comments by the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District which reported 
that it knew of an incident in which a wheelchair flipped over because 
the outer barrier began to deploy while the wheelchair was on it, as 
well as on comments by AATP, Inc. The new interlock requirements would 
not allow the deployment of an occupied outer barrier (S5.11.2.8) or 
inner roll stop (S5.11.2.9).
    In addition to the three new interlocks designed to prevent 
injuries from moving retention barriers, two new interlock requirements 
are being proposed in this document. First, the lift would have to stop 
moving once it encounters resistance while moving in a downward manner 
(5.11.2.7). This is to prevent potential crushing injuries and jacking 
and is consistent with SAE standards. Second, the lift could not move 
either up or down when both the vehicle floor or its bridging device 
and the lift is occupied (S5.2.11.10). This new interlock proposal is 
intended to prevent any injury from the bridging device shifting before 
the lift occupant is safely aboard either the vehicle or the lift.
    We are not proposing at this time to quantify the amount of 
resistance necessary to activate the interlock that is designed to 
prevent jacking or crush injuries, even though NHTSA has required a 
quantifiable level of force not be exceeded in FMVSS No. 118 on power 
windows and sun roofs. Likewise, we have not proposed a specific test 
to measure whether a lift platform, outer barrier or inner roll stop 
are occupied. The agency recognizes that it will need to develop some 
way of measuring an unacceptable level of resistance and lift 
occupation as part of its compliance test procedure. However, we first 
seek comment on how best to measure an unacceptable threshold for 
resistance and occupancy.
    (22) The agency seeks comment on any known injuries which have 
occurred due to an improperly stowing inner roll stop. In addition, the 
agency seeks comment on whether it should add an interlock that would 
prevent or limit the stowage of an inner roll stop while the lift 
platform is moving and the form this interlock should take.
    (23) NHTSA requests comment on whether it should specify a 
quantifiable amount of resistance that would trigger the operation of 
an interlock to prevent jacking and crush injuries, and if so, what 
that amount should be.
    (24) NHTSA requests comment on whether it should specify a means of 
determining if a lift platform, inner roll stop, vehicle floor, 
bridging device, or outer barrier are occupied, and if so, what that 
means should be.
    (25) The agency requests comment on whether there are methods that 
platform lift manufacturers are using or contemplate using to determine 
resistance and occupancy other than force or weight detection.
q. Owner's Manual Insert
    Under this proposal, the lift manufacturer would be required to 
provide a lift installer with an insert for the vehicle owner's manual 
that would contain three important pieces of information:
     A maintenance schedule, since insufficient maintenance has 
been identified as a safety risk to users;
     Lift usage instructions, which provide redundancy in case 
the instructions located near the lift are lost or damaged; and,
     For lifts designed for vehicles other than buses and MPVs 
over 3,220 kg (7,100 lbs), the lift's platform operating volume and 
whether the wheelchair user must enter the lift with the rear wheels 
nearest the vehicle.
    This last set of instructions is to protect lift users from 
shearing or pinching their feet between the lift and the vehicle due to 
the possible lack of an inner roll stop which is not required for lifts 
on vehicles other than buses and MPVs greater than 3,220 kg (7,100 
lbs).
r. Installation Instruction Insert
    Lifts may be manufactured according to all of the proposed 
requirements discussed above but still be unsafe due to improper 
installation. NHTSA believes the lift manufacturers are in the best 
position to know how to properly install their lifts, as well as which 
vehicles are suitable for their lifts. Accordingly, we assume that each 
lift is delivered to the installer with printed instructions for proper 
installation, as well as a diagram or schematic depicting proper lift 
installation.
    We are proposing a new requirement that lift manufacturers include 
with each set of installation instructions a page which specifies a 
list of vehicle make/models for which the lift was designed or a list 
of vehicle characteristics necessary for lift installation consistent 
with the lift manufacturer's compliance certification (e.g., 
appropriate vehicle weight, dimensions, structural integrity), and any 
instructions that must be placed in the vehicle owner's manual, or 
elsewhere in the vehicle in order to comply with the requirements of 
FMVSS No. 141 once the lift is installed. Lift manufacturers may choose 
to include simple test procedures to assure that the lift, once 
installed, is fully operational and continues to meet the lift 
requirements of the standard.
    (26) The agency requests comment on whether, and to what extent, it 
is common for lifts to be delivered to the installer without printed 
installation instructions and whether installers believe the new 
regulation should require lift manufacturers to include installation 
instructions with each lift.
4. Test Conditions and Procedures
    NHTSA is proposing a series of test procedures to determine whether 
a lift complies with the various sections of the proposed standard. 
Each lift would be required to be capable of meeting all of the tests 
specified in the proposed standard, both separately and in the sequence 
specified. The point in the testing at which compliance with each 
requirement is to be checked is also specified. Where a range of values 
is specified, the equipment must be able to meet the requirements at 
all points within the range.
    Although compliance with the proposed requirements may be tested 
with the lift attached to a vehicle, several of the required tests can 
also be performed on test jigs without the loss of rigor or an 
alteration in test outcome. Testing via a test jig may prove 
substantially cheaper than performing all tests while the lift is 
attached to the test vehicle. Tests that may have an effect on the 
vehicle/lift interface (i.e., the inner roll stop, static load I, 
fatigue endurance, and static load II), must be performed on the lift 
while it is attached to the vehicle. All other tests may be performed 
on the test jig.
    The slip resistance test, environmental resistance test, wheelchair 
retention impact test, handrail test, wheelchair retention overload 
test, and static load test III could be performed on a test jig rather 
than on the lift when attached to the vehicle. The attachment hardware 
could be replaced if damaged as a result of removing the lift from or 
installing the lift on the vehicle or test jig. The static load test 
III, which tests for ultimate load, could be performed on the test jig 
since the intent of the test is to over-stress the lift to determine if 
the design

[[Page 46244]]

safety factor has been met rather than to over-stress the hardware 
attaching the lift to the vehicle.
    Static load test I is an operational test in which the lift is 
exercised through its full cycle of movement. The lift is required to 
function in both loaded (272 kg (600 lb)) and unloaded conditions.
    Static load test II would require testing the lift system with a 
load of 816 kg (1,800 lbs) (proof load). Static load test II has a 
safety factor of three (i.e., three times the weight requirement of 
static load test I) and tests the durability of the lift system and its 
components. The 816 kg (1,800 lb) static load test requires proof of 
lift operation after the test and is consistent with the applicable FTA 
guideline.
    The proposed static load test III would require testing the entire 
lift system with a load of 1,088 kg (2,400 lbs) (ultimate load), which 
is the same as the highest load under the DVA and SAE standards. Since 
both the DVA standard and the SAE standard require an ultimate load of 
1,088 kg (2,400 lbs) for the entire lift system, we have tentatively 
determined that 1,088 kg (2,400 lbs) is an appropriate weight for 
testing the lift system with an ultimate load. The ADAAG takes a 
different approach by specifying a design factor of safety of six for 
components likely to wear (such as cables, pulleys and shafts) and a 
design factor of safety of three for non-working components (like the 
platform, frame and attachment hardware) with a working load of 600 
pounds. \30\. This requires no testing on the part of the manufacturer, 
but a design analysis. We are confident that a lift which meets the 
battery of tests proposed here would meet, or exceed, the ADAAG factor 
of safety requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 49 CFR 38.23 (b)(1)Design Load. The design load of the lift 
shall be at least 600 pounds. Working parts, such as cables, 
pulleys, and shafts, which can be expected to wear, and upon which 
the lift depends for support of the load, shall have a safety factor 
of at least six, based on the ultimate strength of the material. 
Nonworking parts, such as platform, frame, and attachment hardware 
which would not be expected to wear, shall have a safety factor of 
at least three, based on the ultimate strength of the material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe our proposal, using three static tests and a fatigue 
test is consistent with the level of safety sought by the SAE, DVA, 
FTA, and ADAAG. \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Fatigue testing is more appropriate for identifying 
problems with components that wear, than a separate, higher, safety 
factor for these components during a static test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Test Pallet and Load
    All static load tests would be conducted using a test pallet which 
would mimic the size of a standard powered wheelchair. The test pallet 
base would measure 660 mm  x  686 mm (26 in  x  27 in). The test pallet 
for the static load test I and the fatigue endurance test (if adopted) 
would be made of a rectangular steel plate of uniform thickness. The 
load which rests on the pallet would be made of rectangular steel 
plates of uniform thickness with dimensions between 533 mm and 686 mm 
(21-27 in). This proposal varies from the NPRM in that it specifies the 
test pallet base rather than allowing a base within a range of 
dimensions.
b. Static Load Test I--Working Load
    Using the control panel, the test operator would deploy the stowed 
platform, center a test pallet on the lift platform and center a load 
with a total mass of 272 kg (600 lbs) on the pallet, and lower the 
platform to the ground level loading position, stopping once midway 
through the process. The pallet would be removed from the platform and 
the lift cycled up, stowed, and cycled back down, stopping midway in 
each up or down cycle. The test pallet would then be reloaded onto the 
platform which would be cycled up to the vehicle floor level loading 
position, stopping once midway through the cycle. The pallet would be 
removed and the lift stowed. The operator would turn off the power 
supply and repeat the test manually, using the lift's manual backup 
mode.
    The test procedure for the static load test I has not changed since 
the NPRM, except that more aspects of lift performance would be 
required to be measured under this proposal. In all, 44 specific 
requirements of proposed FMVSS No. 141 would be assessed using the 
static load test I; only six of these standard requirements are new. 
Unlike the NPRM, this proposal clearly specifies which requirements 
must be checked under static load test I.
c. Static Load Test II--Proof Load
    The static load test II, which tests the lift system with a load of 
816 kg (1,800 lbs), is designed to ensure that the lift/vehicle system 
can safely sustain loads up to three times the maximum expected load of 
272 kg (600 lbs) and remain operable. The test would require a loaded 
pallet to be placed on the lift platform while the lift is at the 
vehicle floor level loading position. The load would remain on the 
platform for two minutes, after which it would be removed. The lift and 
vehicle would be examined for separation, fractures or breakage, and 
static load test I would be repeated. Repeating static load test I will 
determine whether all lift components still function.
    This proposed test is the same as the static load test II in the 
NPRM except that the repeated static load test I was referred to as 
static load test III in the NPRM. This proposal specifies a different 
test for static load test III.
d. Static Load Test III--Ultimate Load
    NHTSA has incorporated static load test III into this proposal to 
ensure that the lift could support the heaviest wheelchair/user 
combination without catastrophic failure. The lift is not required to 
operate at this static load. It is anticipated that a load this size is 
likely to cause permanent deformation to the lift/vehicle system. The 
test would require a test pallet and load with a mass of 1,088 kg 
(2,400 lbs) be placed on the lift platform. The loaded pallet would be 
left on the platform for two minutes and then removed. The lift would 
then be inspected for separation, fracture, or breakage.
    This test differs from Static Load Test II, the proof test, in that 
the lift need not remain operable after application of this load. 
Static Load Test I is not repeated after Static Load Test III as it is 
with Test II.
    We have included questions below about the extent to which test III 
adds to the safety benefits and cost of test II and how our proposed 
test procedures compare to the requirements of ADAAG.
    (27) NHTSA requests comments about the extent to which static load 
test III adds safety benefits to those of static load test II.
    (28) NHTSA requests comments on the estimated costs of testing 
based on the proposed requirements, for tests performed by or for lift 
manufacturers, vehicle manufacturers, and, if applicable, lift 
installers.
    (29) NHTSA requests comments from lift manufacturers currently 
making ADA-compliant lifts on how they test their lift systems for 
compliance with 49 CFR 38.23(b)(1), and whether the level of safety 
required by the tests proposed here meets that required by 49 CFR 
38.23(b)(1).

G. Additional Platform Lift Requirements Under Consideration

    This section sets forth some additional requirements being 
considered by the agency for inclusion in the final rule. These 
proposed requirements are new and were not addressed in the NPRM. We 
request comment on whether, based on their costs and their safety 
benefits, any or all the requirements should be adopted in the final 
rule.

[[Page 46245]]

    We considered proposing requirements that would require lift 
components to meet voluntary industry standards regarding mechanical, 
electrical and hydraulic components.\32\ Platform lifts have a variety 
of designs and may utilize many different types of mechanical, 
hydraulic, and electrical components. The FTA guidelines and SAE 
standards identify relevant industry standards for such components and 
require compliance with those standards. We believe incorporation of 
relevant voluntary industry standards could be design restrictive and 
may provide for a level of redundancy at the component level which 
would not add to the overall safety of the lift system. Accordingly, 
NHTSA has decided against proposing these component requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ E.g., ANSI B1.5, ``Acme Screw Threads, 1994''; SAE EJ429, 
``Mechanical & Material Requirements for Externally Threaded 
Fasteners'', August 1983; SAE J1292, ``Automobile, Truck, Truck 
Tractor, Trailer & Motor Coach Wiring'', October 1981; and SAE J517, 
``Hydraulic Hose'', June 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (30) NHTSA requests comments on whether these requirements on 
components have sufficient safety value to merit inclusion in FMVSS No. 
141.
1. Environmental Resistance
    Some lifts are designed to be stowed outside the vehicle. Many of 
these lifts are stowed under the vehicle's undercarriage, but they may 
also be stowed in another manner. Accordingly, the lifts are exposed to 
the weather at all times. The SAE standard requires such externally 
mounted lifts to comply with the salt spray tests of FMVSS No. 209. 
Since corrosion may accelerate wear, NHTSA is proposing to adopt the 
SAE requirements for externally mounted lifts. Attachment hardware, 
whether located outside of the vehicle or within the vehicle 
compartment, would likewise be subject to the hardware requirements of 
FMVSS No. 209, which permit compliance either by passing the salt spray 
test or by being electroplated. These requirements are proposed as S5.4 
and S6.3 of the standard.
    (31) NHTSA requests comments on whether these or other 
environmental resistance tests merit inclusion in FMVSS No. 141.
2. Fatigue Endurance
    If adopted, fatigue cycle testing would be required for all 
platform lifts. The testing is intended to simulate the real world use 
of the lift and would identify failure modes associated with wear and 
the fatigue fracture of components. Static testing alone is 
insufficient since the ability to carry a static load, even with an 
added factor of safety, does not always correlate with the ability to 
withstand the repeated application of lower level loads. With repeated 
loading, small flaws in lift components may increase in size and become 
cracks. The cracks can spread until there is insufficient material to 
sustain the applied load, creating the possibility of catastrophic 
failure. The FTA guideline requires a fatigue test in which the lift is 
tested through 15,600 cycles, with the first 600 cycles using 272 kg 
mass (600 lb load) and the remaining 15,000 cycles using 181 kg mass 
(400 lb load). The SAE standard requires 4,400 cycles using 272 kg mass 
(600 lb load), with one-half of the cycles tested with a load and one-
half of the cycles tested empty. The California Highway Patrol and U-
Lift support the adoption of a test similar to the one found in the FTA 
guidelines.
    NHTSA has decided to propose incorporating these two requirements 
for lifts designed to be installed on buses and MPVs over 3,220 kg 
(7,100 lbs). We believe the form of fatigue testing in the SAE standard 
more closely represents actual use. However, lifts designed for buses 
and larger MPVs are more appropriately subjected to a larger number of 
cycles than those designed for other vehicles, since the lift systems 
for transit and paratransit vehicles will be subjected to more use than 
the lift system on a personally-owned vehicle. A single load level of 
600 pounds is consistent with ADAAG.
    Lifts designed for installation on vehicle other than buses and 
larger MPVs would be required to meet the SAE test. The applied load 
would be 272 kg (600 lbs) during half of the 15,600 up and down cycles 
of the fatigue testing. Half of the 15,600 cycles would be unloaded and 
incorporate a fold and unfold sequence. These requirements would be 
included as S5.6.1 and S6.7 of the proposed standard.
    (32) NHTSA requests comments on whether these fatigue endurance 
tests merit inclusion in FMVSS No. 141.
3. Operations Counter
    NHTSA is considering whether to require lift systems to have an 
operations counter that would record each complete up and down cycle of 
the lift. The counter would enable the vehicle owner to closely follow 
the manufacturer's maintenance schedule. Proper maintenance has been 
identified as a crucial factor related to lift safety. The FTA 
guidelines make the use of such a counter optional. These requirements 
would be included as S5.11, S5.12 and S5.12.2 of the standard.
    (33) NHTSA requests comments on whether an operations counter 
should be included in FMVSS No. 141.

H. Proposed Vehicle Requirements

    NHTSA is also proposing a vehicle standard, FMVSS No. 142, which 
would apply to new vehicles equipped with platform lifts. We are 
concerned that a lift that meets the proposed platform lift standard 
could nevertheless be unsafe if the lift were improperly installed or 
if the required instructions and warnings were not placed in the 
vehicle by the lift installer. The proposed vehicle standard would 
apply to all motor vehicles. Certification that a lift complies with 
FMVSS No. 141 is the responsibility of the platform lift manufacturer. 
The proposed vehicle standard does not impose any additional 
certification requirements. However, vehicle manufacturers, including 
alterers who modify a vehicle prior to sale to the vehicle's first 
purchaser, should be aware that under the applicable statute,\33\ they 
will be responsible for the recall (and all associated costs) on non-
compliant platform lifts. They may seek reimbursement for the cost of a 
recall from the lift manufacturer. Lift manufacturers would be 
responsible for the recall of all non-compliant lifts installed in a 
vehicle after first purchase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 49 U.S.C. 30118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Installation Requirements
    Under the proposed vehicle standard, the vehicle manufacturer would 
have to install a platform lift in accordance with the lift 
manufacturer's written instructions. Since not all platform lifts are 
appropriate for all types of vehicles, and the proposed lift standard 
is less stringent for some types of vehicles, a platform lift could 
only be installed on a vehicle of the type identified by the lift 
manufacturer as appropriate for that particular lift. Likewise, the 
platform lift must be installed according to the installation 
instructions which may include operational tests to assure that the 
lift is properly installed and operates safely.
    (34) NHTSA requests comments on whether a vehicle standard 
requiring compliance with a platform lift manufacturer's installation 
instructions will adequately ensure that platform lifts are safely 
installed. If not, what additional requirements are necessary?
2. Owner's Manual Insert Requirements
    The vehicle manufacturer would also be required to ensure that the 
vehicle owner's manual inserts required by the proposed platform lift 
standard are

[[Page 46246]]

actually placed in the vehicle owner's manual. The inserts can serve 
their purpose only if they are placed where a vehicle user can readily 
find and use them. NHTSA believes that only the vehicle manufacturer 
can guarantee the insert's proper placement. The items that a vehicle 
manufacturer would have to ensure were placed in the vehicle owner's 
manual under this proposed standard are (a) simple instructions 
regarding lift operation, including back-up operation, as specified in 
S5.10 of the proposed FMVSS No. 141; (b) the maintenance schedule 
specified in S5.12 of the proposed FMVSS No. 141; and (c) for vehicles 
with a GVWR less than or equal to 3,220 kg (7,100 lb), the dimensions 
constituting the unobstructed platform operating volume and information 
on whether a wheelchair user must back on to the lift platform because 
the lift does not have an inner roll stop.
3. Control System
    NHTSA believes that only the vehicle manufacturer can ensure that 
the control system set forth in the proposed lift standard is installed 
in a manner consistent with that standard. Accordingly, we have 
tentatively determined that for buses and MPVs over 3,220 kg (7,100 
lbs) GVWR, the vehicle manufacturer should be required to ensure that 
all lift operating controls be located together and in a position where 
the control operator has a direct, unobstructed view of the lift 
passenger, and any wheelchair, throughout the range of lift operation. 
The platform lift manufacturer would be required to provide the vehicle 
manufacturer with instructions regarding proper placement of the 
control system as part of the installation instructions.
    The vehicle manufacturer would also be required to place a copy of 
the lift operating instructions near the controls so that all potential 
lift operators would have ready access to those instructions.

VI. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures
    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' 
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    We have considered the impact of this rulemaking action under 
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory 
policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was reviewed by the 
Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning 
and Review.'' This action has been determined to be ``significant'' 
under the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and 
procedures because of the level of public interest in the rulemaking.
    However, this action would not be economically significant. The 
agency estimates that between 8,288 and 10,425 buses and MPVs larger 
than 3,220 kg (7,100 lbs) would be subject to the proposed standards, 
either directly or indirectly, annually. We believe the average cost of 
a new lift, excluding the cost of installation, is approximately $5000. 
This rulemaking would add approximately $291 to the cost of each lift 
system of the type design for larger vehicles. The cost of upgrade per 
lift would be approximately $280, and the cost of certification per 
lift would be approximately $11.
    For lifts designed for installation on MPVs under 3,220 kg (7,100 
lbs), trucks, truck tractors, and motor homes, and any other motor 
vehicles we believe that between 8,800 and 17,000 lifts per year would 
be required to comply with the proposed platform lift standard. This 
rulemaking would add approximately $268 to the cost of each lift 
system. The cost of upgrade per lift would be approximately $255, and 
the cost of certification per lift would be approximately $13.
    The figures given for upgrade costs are relatively low because we 
anticipate that most lift manufacturers are already complying with the 
existing voluntary and Federal standards. The proposed vehicle standard 
would impose no additional upgrade costs on the vehicle manufacturers, 
although operational testing may impose some additional costs. NHTSA 
anticipates that those tests would be relatively simple (e.g., does the 
threshold warning work, is there an excessive gap between the lift and 
the vehicle) and, therefore, a nominal additional cost.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of 
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a 
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    The businesses and organizations likely to be affected by a 
rulemaking concerning this rulemaking are:
     Transit, paratransit, intercity, and school bus 
manufacturers (SB),
     Life manufacturers (SB),
     Public/private transit and paratransit bus owners and 
operators (e.g., municipal transit authorities) (SO/SB),
     Public/private and city/county school bus operators (SB/
SO/SGJ),
     School bus manufacturers that make/sell their own lift 
equipment (SB), and
     Dealers and distributors of school buses (SB).
    We have prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) which is 
contained in the Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation (PRE). The PRE is 
entered in the docket. Based on this analysis, we have tentatively 
concluded that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 13132

    We have analyzed this proposal in accordance with Executive Order 
13132 (``Federalism''). We have determined that this proposal may have 
federalism implications. Many states and local transit authorities 
already have their own minimum lift performance

[[Page 46247]]

requirements for transit, paratransit, intercity and school buses in 
order to safely accommodate persons with disabilities. However, our 
initial determination is that the federalism implications are not 
sufficiently defined at this time to warrant preparation of a 
Federalism consultation. It should be noted that, regardless of that 
determination, the we find that the objective of the proposed 
rulemaking, establishing minimum performance requirements for transit, 
paratransit, intercity, school bus and personal transport lifts, 
requires action that can only be implemented effectively at the 
national level.

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. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives considered by us.
    This rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not 
economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866. Nor does it involve 
decisions based on health risks that disproportionately affect 
children.

Executive Order 12778

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12778, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' we 
have considered whether this proposed rule would have any retroactive 
effect. We conclude that it would not have such effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 
30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a 
State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable to the 
same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal 
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a 
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for 
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial 
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a 
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before 
parties may file suit in court.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have analyzed this proposed amendment for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have 
any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless 
the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This proposal 
proposes new information collection requirements in that both new 
regulations would require certain disclosures to third parties. These 
requirements and our estimates of the burden to lift and vehicle 
manufacturers are given below. There is no burden to the general 
public.
     Estimated burden to lift manufacturers to produce an 
insert for the vehicle owner's manual stating the lift's platform 
operating volume, maintenance schedule, and instructions regarding the 
lift operating procedures: 10 manufacturers  x  24 hrs amortized over 5 
yrs = 48 hrs per year.
     Estimated burden to lift manufacturers to produce an 
insert for the lift installation instructions identifying the vehicles 
on which the lift is designed to be installed: 10 manufacturers  x  24 
hrs amortized over 5 yrs = 48 hrs per year.
     Estimated burden to lift manufacturers to produce two 
labels for operating and backup lift operation:

10 manufacturers  x  24 hrs amortized over 5 yrs = 48 hrs per year
Total estimated burden = 144 hrs per year

     Cost to lift manufacturers to produce:

Label for operating instructions: 27,398 lifts  x  $0.13 per label = 
$3,561.74
Label for backup operations: 27,398 lifts  x  $0.13 per label = 
$3,561.74
Owner's manual insert: 27,398 lifts  x  $0.04 per page  x  1 page = 
$1,095.92
Installation instruction insert: 27,398 lifts  x  $0.04 per page  x  1 
page = $1,095.92
Total annual cost = $9,315.32

    Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the 
information collection requirements should direct them to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Room 10235, New Executive 
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; Attention Desk Officer for 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
    NHTSA will consider comments by the public on this proposed 
collection of information in evaluating:
     Whether the proposed collection of information is 
necessary for the safety of lift users,
     The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed collection of information,
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be 
collected, and
     The opportunities to minimize the information collection 
burden.
    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of 
information contained in this proposal between 30 and 60 days after 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Therefore, a 
comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB 
receives it within 30 days of the publication of this proposal. This 
does not affect the deadline for public comment to the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration on the merits of the proposed 
regulations.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary 
consensus standards \34\ in its regulatory activities unless doing so 
would be inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., the statutory 
provisions regarding NHTSA's vehicle safety authority) or otherwise 
impractical. In meeting that requirement, we are required to consult 
with voluntary, private sector, consensus standards bodies. Examples of 
organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards 
bodies include the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 
the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and the American National 
Standards Institute (ANSI). If NHTSA does not use available and 
potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards, we are required 
by the Act to provide Congress, through OMB, an explanation of the 
reasons for not using such standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. 
Technical standards are defined by the NTTAA as ``performance-based 
or design-specific technical specifications and related management 
systems practices.'' They pertain to ``products and processes, such 
as size, strength, or technical performance of a product, process or 
material.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have considered and, to the extent consistent with our statutory 
obligations, proposed several voluntary standards and guidelines as 
part of this rulemaking. A full description of the agency's actions in 
this regard can be found elsewhere in this document under section V. C 
``Harmonization with Governmental and Industry Standards''

[[Page 46248]]

as well as throughout the discussion on the specific requirements 
proposed today.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more 
than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base 
year of 1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written 
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to 
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives 
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome 
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of 
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable 
law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than 
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
if we publish with the final rule an explanation why that alternative 
was not adopted.
    This proposal does not propose to impose any unfunded mandates 
under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. This proposal does not 
meet the definition of a Federal mandate because it would not result in 
costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. We anticipate 
that the total cost of this rule, if issued, would be between eight and 
ten million dollars, well below the $100 million threshold of the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Thus, this proposal is not subject to the 
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

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

VII. Comments

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. (49 CFR 553.21). 
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 two copies of your comments, including the 
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under 
ADDRESS.

How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?

    If you 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. In addition, you should 
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential 
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above 
under ADDRESS. 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. (49 CFR part 512.)

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives 
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated 
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider 
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket 
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider it 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 comments received by Docket Management at the 
address given above under ADDRESS. The hours of the Docket are 
indicated above in the same location.
    You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments 
on the Internet, take the following steps:
    1. Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the 
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
    2. On that page, click on ``search.''
    3. On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the four-
digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. Example: 
If the docket number were ``NHTSA-1998-1234,'' you would type ``1234.'' 
After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
    4. On the next page, which contains docket summary information for 
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may 
download the comments.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will 
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber 
products, Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed that 49 CFR part 
571 be amended 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, 30166 delegation 
of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
    2. Section 571.3 would be amended by adding a definition of ``motor 
home'' to Sec. 571.3(b) as follows:


Sec. 571.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) Other definitions. As used in this chapter--
* * * * *
    Motor home means a motor vehicle with motive power that is designed 
to

[[Page 46249]]

provide temporary residential accommodations, as evidenced by the 
presence of at least four of the following facilities: Cooking; 
refrigeration or ice box; self-contained toilet; heating and/or air 
conditioning; a potable water supply system including a faucet and a 
sink; and a separate 110-125 volt electrical power supply and/or an LP 
gas supply.
* * * * *


Sec. 571.105  [Amended]

    3. Section 571.105 would be amended by removing the definition of 
``motor home'' contained in Sec. 571.105 S4., Definitions.
    4. Section 571.141 would be added to read as follows:


Sec. 571.141  Standard No. 141; Platform lift systems for motor 
vehicles.

    S1. Scope. This standard specifies requirements for platform lifts 
used to assist persons with limited mobility in entering or leaving a 
vehicle.
    S2. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to prevent injuries 
and fatalities to passengers and bystanders during the operation of 
platform lifts installed in motor vehicles.
    S3. Application. This standard applies to platform lifts designed 
to carry passengers into and out of motor vehicles.
    S4. Definitions.
    Bridging device means that portion of a platform lift which 
provides a transitional surface between the lift platform and vehicle 
floor.
    Cycle means deploying a platform lift from a stowed position, 
lowering the lift to the ground level loading position, raising the 
lift to the vehicle floor level loading position, and stowing the lift. 
The term includes operation of any wheelchair retention device, 
bridging device, and inner roll stop.
    Deploy means with respect to a platform lift, its movement from a 
stowed position to a vehicle floor level loading position. With respect 
to a wheelchair retention device or inner roll stop, the term means the 
movement of the device or stop to a fully functional position intended 
to prevent a passenger from disembarking the lift platform or being 
pinched between the platform and vehicle.
    Floor reference plane means the plane nominally perpendicular to 
the longitudinal vehicle reference plane for platform lifts that deploy 
from the side of the vehicle or perpendicular to the transverse vehicle 
reference plane for lifts that deploy from the rear of the vehicle, and 
tangent to the outermost edge of the vehicle floor surface adjacent to 
the lift platform. (See figure 1.)
    Gap means a discontinuity in a plane surface, or between two 
adjacent surfaces.
    Lift reference plane means the nominally vertical plane that is 
defined by two orthogonal axes passing through the geometric center of 
the lift platform surface. One axis is perpendicular to the platform 
reference plane and the other is parallel to the direction of 
wheelchair travel during loading of the lift. (See figure 1.)
    Loading position means, with respect to a platform lift, a position 
at which a passenger can either embark or disembark a lift. The two 
loading positions are at vehicle floor and ground level.
    Longitudinal vehicle reference plane means the nominally vertical 
longitudinal plane that contains the longitudinal axis of the vehicle 
and that moves along with the vehicle body in response to the loading 
of the vehicle suspension. (See figure 1.)
    Platform lift means a level change device, including any 
integration of existing vehicle components, and excluding a ramp, used 
to assist persons with limited mobility in entering or leaving a 
vehicle.
    Platform reference plane means a plane tangent to the platform 
surface at its geometric center. (See figure 1.)
    Platform surface means the passenger carrying surface of the lift 
platform.
    Platform threshold area means the rectangular area of the vehicle 
floor defined by moving a line that lies on the portion of the edge of 
the vehicle floor directly adjacent to the lift platform, through a 
distance of 457 mm (18 inches) across the vehicle floor in a direction 
perpendicular to the edge. Any portion of a bridging device which lies 
on this area must be considered part of that area.
    Range of passenger operation means the portion of the lift cycle 
during which the platform is at or between the ground and vehicle level 
loading positions.
    Stow means with respect to a platform lift, its movement from a 
vehicle floor level loading position to the position maintained during 
normal vehicle travel; and, with respect to a wheelchair retention 
device, bridging device, or inner roll stop, its movement from a fully 
functional position to a position intended to allow a passenger to 
embark or disembark the lift platform.
    Test pallet means a platform on which required test loads are 
placed for handling and moving.
    Transverse vehicle reference plane means the nominally vertical 
transverse plane that contains the transverse axis of the vehicle and 
that moves along with the vehicle body in response to the loading of 
the vehicle suspension. (See figure 1.)
    Wheelchair means a wheeled seating system for the support and 
conveyance of a person with physical disabilities, comprised of at 
least a frame, a seat, and wheels.
    S5. Requirements. Each platform lift manufactured for installation 
on a motor vehicle must meet the applicable requirements in this 
section. Where a range of values is specified, the equipment must be 
able to meet the requirements at all points within the range. The test 
procedures in S6 will be used to determine compliance with all 
requirements, except S5.3, S5.7, S5.8.9 and S5.13. Compliance with 
those paragraphs will be determined through inspection and/or analysis.
    S5.1  Threshold warning signal.
    S5.1.1  Except when the platform lift is operated manually in 
backup mode as required by S5.10, the lift must meet the requirements 
of S5.1.2 during the lift operation specified in S6.6.
    S5.1.2  Except for platform lifts where platform loading takes 
place wholly over the vehicle floor, a visual or audible warning must 
activate if the platform is more than 25 mm (1 inch) below the floor 
reference plane and any portion of a passenger's body or mobility aid 
is on the platform threshold area.
    S5.1.2.1  For platform lifts designed for installation on buses and 
multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR greater than 3,220 kg 
(7,100 lbs), the threshold warning signal must have both a visual and 
an audible component.
    S5.1.2.2  The visual warning required by S5.1.2 must be a flashing 
red beacon having a minimum of 20 candela and provision must be made 
for the beacon to be installed such that it can be seen by a passenger 
backing onto the platform lift from the interior of the vehicle.
    S5.1.2.3  The audible warning required by S5.1.2 must be a minimum 
of 85 dBA between 500 and 3000 Hz.
    S5.1.2.4  The intensity of the visual or audible warnings required 
by S5.1.2 must be measured at the location 914 mm (3 ft) above the 
center of the platform threshold area. (See figure 3.)
    S5.2  Platform lift operational requirements.
    S5.2.1  The platform lift must meet the requirements of S5.2.2 
through S5.2.4, during the lift operations specified in S6.6. These 
requirements must be satisfied both with and without a 272 kg mass (600 
lb load) on the lift platform, except for S5.2.2.2. S5.2.2.2 must be 
satisfied without any load.

[[Page 46250]]

    S5.2.2  Maximum platform velocity.
    S5.2.2.1  Throughout the range of passenger operation, neither the 
vertical nor the horizontal velocity of the platform must be greater 
than 152 mm (6 inches) per second.
    S5.2.2.2  During the stow and deploy operations, neither the 
vertical nor horizontal velocity of the platform must be greater than 
305 mm (12 inches) per second.
    S5.2.3  Maximum platform acceleration. Throughout the range of 
passenger operation, neither the horizontal nor vertical acceleration 
of the platform must exceed 0.3 g, after the accelerometer output is 
filtered with a channel frequency class (CFC) 3 filter. The filter must 
meet the requirements of SAE J211 with FH = 3 Hz and 
FN = 5 Hz. The accelerometer is to be located at the 
geometric center of the platform and must be mounted directly on the 
platform when it is unloaded and on the 272 kg mass (600 lb load) 
specified in S6.1 when the platform is loaded.
    S5.2.4  Maximum noise level. Except as provided in S5.1.2 and 
S5.1.4, the noise level of the platform lift may not exceed 80 dB as 
measured at any lift operator's position designated by the platform 
lift manufacturer for the intended vehicle and in the area on the lift 
defined in S5.5.2.2 and 5.5.2.3, during the range of passenger 
operation.
    S5.3  Environmental resistance.
    S5.3.1  Attachment hardware. Attachment hardware of a platform 
lift, after being subjected to the conditions specified in S6.3, must 
be free of ferrous corrosion on significant surfaces except for 
permissible ferrous corrosion, as defined in FMVSS No. 209, at 
peripheral surface edges or edges of holes on underfloor reinforcing 
plates and washers. Alternatively, such hardware at or near the vehicle 
floor must be protected against corrosion by an electrodeposited 
coating of nickel, or copper and nickel with at least a service 
condition number of SC2, and other attachment hardware must be 
protected by an electrodeposited coating of nickel, or copper and 
nickel with a service condition number of SC1, in accordance with 
American Society for Testing and Materials B456-94, ``Standard 
Specification for Electrodeposited Coatings of Copper Plus Nickel Plus 
Chromium and Nickel Plus Chromium,'' but such hardware may not be 
racked for electroplating in locations subjected to maximum stress.
    S5.3.2  Externally mounted platform lifts. A platform lift or its 
components, which are not located in the occupant compartment of the 
motor vehicle when the lift is in a stowed position, after being 
subjected to the conditions specified in S6.3, must be free of ferrous 
corrosion on significant surfaces except for permissible ferrous 
corrosion, as defined in FMVSS No. 209, at peripheral surface edges and 
edges of holes and continue to function properly.
    S5.4  Platform requirements.
    S5.4.1  During the platform lift operations specified in S6.6, the 
vehicle must meet the requirements of S5.4.2 through S5.4.6, S5.4.7.4, 
S5.4.9.2 through S5.4.9.5, S5.4.10 and S5.4.11, both with and without a 
272 kg mass (600 lb load) on the platform.
    S5.4.2  Unobstructed platform operating volume.
    S5.4.2.1  Except as provided in S5.4.3, no portion of the platform 
lift must intersect the platform operating volume as specified in 
S5.4.2.2 and S5.4.2.3 throughout the range of passenger operation.
    S5.4.2.2  For platform lifts designed for installation on buses and 
multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR greater than 3,220 kg 
(7,100 lbs), the platform operating volume is the sum of an upper part 
and a lower part. The lower part is a rectangular solid whose base is 
724 mm (28.5 inches) wide by the length of the platform surface, whose 
height is 51 mm (2 inches), and which is resting on the platform 
surface with each side of the base parallel with the nearest side of 
the platform surface. The width is perpendicular to the lift reference 
plane and the length is parallel to the lift reference plane (See 
Figure 2). The upper part is a rectangular solid whose base is 762 mm 
(30 inches) by 1,219 mm (48 inches), whose height is 711 mm (28 
inches), whose base is tangent to the top surface of the lower 
rectangular solid, and whose vertical centroidal axis coincides with 
that of the lower rectangular solid.
    S5.4.2.3  For platform lifts designed for installation on vehicles 
other than buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR 
greater than 3,220 kg (7,100 lbs), the platform operating volume is as 
specified in the vehicle owner's manual.
    S5.4.3  Platform surface protrusions.
    S5.4.3.1  For platform lifts designed for installation on buses and 
multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR greater than 3,220 kg 
(7,100 lbs), except as required for deployment of the wheelchair 
retention device and inner roll stop, throughout the range of passenger 
operation, the platform surface may have no protrusions which rise more 
than 6.5 mm (0.25 inches) above the platform surface, measured 
perpendicular to the platform surface by a device with its base 
centered between 50 mm (1.97 inches) and 100mm (3.94 inches) from the 
protrusion. The base of the protrusion measurement device shall have a 
cross-section not less than 25mm (0.98 inches) and not more than 50 mm 
(1.97 inches).
    S5.4.3.2  For platform lifts designed for installation vehicles 
other than buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR 
greater than 3,220 kg (7,100 lbs), except as required for deployment of 
the wheelchair retention device and inner roll stop, throughout the 
range of passenger operation, the platform surface may have no 
protrusions which rise more than 13 mm (0.50 inches) above the platform 
surface, measured perpendicular to the platform surface by a device 
with its base centered between 50 mm (1.97 inches) and 100mm (3.94 
inches) from the protrusion. All portions of the sides of a protrusion 
that are between 6.5 mm (0.25 inches) and 13 mm (0.50 inches) above the 
platform must have a slope not greater than 1:2, measured with respect 
to the platform surface at the location of the protrusion. The base of 
the protrusion measurement device shall have a cross-section not less 
than 25mm (0.98 inches) and not more than 50 mm (1.97 inches).
    S5.4.4  Gaps, transitions and openings. 
    S5.4.4.1  When the platform lift is at the ground level loading 
position, any vertical surface transition measured perpendicular to the 
ground over which a passenger may traverse to enter or exit the 
platform, may be not greater than 6.5 mm (0.25 inches). When the lift 
is at the vehicle level loading position, any vertical surface 
transition measured perpendicular to the floor reference plane over 
which a passenger may traverse to enter or exit the platform, may be 
not greater than 6.5 mm (0.25 inches).
    S5.4.4.2  When the platform lift is at the ground or vehicle level 
loading position, the slope of any surface over which a passenger must 
traverse to enter or exit the platform must have a rise to run not 
greater than 1:2 on the portion of the rise between 6.5 mm (0.25 
inches) and 13 mm (0.5 inches), and 1:8 on the portion of the rise 
between 13 mm (0.5 inches) and 76 mm (3.0 inches). The rise of any 
sloped surface may not be greater than 76 mm (3.0 inches). When the 
lift is at the ground level loading position, measurements must be made 
perpendicular to the ground. When the lift is at the vehicle level 
loading position, measurements must be made perpendicular to the floor 
reference plane.
    S5.4.4.3  When the inner roll stop or any outer barrier is 
deployed, any gap between the inner roll stop and lift

[[Page 46251]]

platform and any gap between the outer barrier and lift platform must 
prevent passage of the clearance test block when its long axis is held 
perpendicular to the platform reference plane. The clearance test block 
is made of a rigid material and is 15.9  x  15.9  x  102 mm (0.625  x  
0.625  x  4.0 inches) with all corners having a 1.6 mm (0.0625 inch) 
radius.
    S5.4.4.4  When the lift platform is at the ground or vehicle level 
loading position, any horizontal gap over which a passenger must 
traverse to enter or exit the platform must prevent passage of a 13 mm 
(0.5 inch) diameter sphere.
    S5.4.4.5  Throughout the range of passenger operation, any opening 
in the platform surface must prevent passage of a 19 mm (0.75 inch) 
diameter sphere.
    S5.4.4.6  Throughout the range of passenger operation, any gap 
between the platform sides and edge guards which move with the platform 
must prevent passage of a 13 mm (0.5 inch) diameter sphere. Where 
structures fixed to the vehicle are used as edge guards, the horizontal 
gap between the platform side and vehicle structure must prevent 
passage of a 6.5 mm (0.25 inch) diameter sphere.
    S5.4.5  Platform deflection. Through- out the range of passenger 
operation, the angle of the stationary lift platform relative to the 
vehicle, may not be more than 1 degree with no load on the platform and 
may not be more than 3 degrees with a 272 kg mass (600 lb load) on the 
platform. The angle must be measured between axes perpendicular to the 
floor and platform reference planes.
    S5.4.6  Edge guards. 
    S5.4.6.1  The platform lift must have edge guards which extend 
continuously along each side of the lift platform parallel to the 
direction of wheelchair movement during loading and unloading.
    S5.4.6.2  Edge guards which move with the platform must have 
vertical sides facing the platform surface and have a minimum height of 
38 mm (1.5 inches), measured vertically from the platform surface.
    S5.4.6.3  Deployment. Except whenever any part of the platform 
surface is below a horizontal plane 76 mm (3 in) above the ground, the 
edge guard must be deployed throughout the range of passenger 
operation.
    S5.4.7  Wheelchair retention. 
    S5.4.7.1  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 S6.4.2 
upright with all of its wheels on the platform surface, vehicle floor, 
bridging device or on a combination of the platform surface, vehicle 
floor, and bridging device, throughout its range of passenger 
operation, except as provided in S5.4.7.4. The lift will be tested in 
accordance with S6.4.3 to determine compliance with this section.
    S5.4.7.2  Impact II. For platform lifts designed so that platform 
loading takes place wholly over the vehicle floor, the lift must have 
means of retaining the test device specified in S6.4.2 upright with all 
of its wheels on the platform surface, throughout the range of 
passenger operation, except as provided in S5.4.7.4. The lift will be 
tested in accordance with S6.4.4 to determine compliance with this 
section.
    S5.4.7.3  Overload. The deployed wheelchair retention device(s) 
must be capable of sustaining 7,117 N (1,600 lb force) when tested in 
accordance with S6.10. No separation, fracture, or breakage of the 
wheelchair retention device may occur as a result of conducting the 
test in S6.10.
    S5.4.7.4  Deployment. Except whenever any part of the platform 
surface is below a horizontal plane 76 mm (3 inches) above the ground, 
the wheelchair retention device(s) must be deployed throughout the 
range of passenger operation.
    S5.4.8  Inner roll stop. 
    S5.4.8.1  Platform lifts designed for installation on vehicles with 
a GVWR greater than 3,220 kg (7,100 lbs) must have an inner roll stop 
that meets the requirements of S5.4.8.3.
    S5.4.8.2 Platform lifts designed for installation on vehicles with 
a GVWR less than or equal to 3,220 kg (7,100 lbs) must:
    (a) Have an inner roll stop that meets the requirements of 
S5.4.8.3; or
    (b) have operating instructions near the lift controls and in the 
vehicle owner's manual, as specified in S5.7.6 and S5.12.3, that 
contain a warning that wheelchairs should back onto the platform when 
entering from the ground.
    S5.4.8.3  When tested in accordance with S6.5, platform lifts with 
a ground level loading direction towards the vehicle, must have an 
inner roll stop that provides a means that prevents:
    (a) The front wheels of the test device specified in S6.4.2 from 
passing over the edge of the platform where the roll stop is located, 
when the lift is at the ground level loading position; and
    (b) any portion of the test device specified in S6.4.2 from being 
contacted simultaneously with a portion of the lift platform and any 
other structure, throughout the lift's range of passenger operation.
    S5.4.9  Handrails. 
    S5.4.9.1  For platform lifts designed for installation on buses and 
multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR greater than 3,220 kg 
(7,100 lbs), throughout the range of passenger operation, there must be 
a handrail located on each side of the lift that meets the requirements 
of S5.4.9.2 through S5.4.9.8. For lifts designed for installation on 
vehicles other than buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a 
GVWR greater than 3,220 kg (7,100 lbs) and equipped with handrails, the 
handrails must meet the requirement of S5.4.9.2 through 5.4.9.8, 
throughout the range of passenger operation.
    S5.4.9.2  The graspable portion of each handrail may be not less 
than 762 mm (30 inches) and not more than 965 mm (38 inches) above the 
platform surface, measured vertically.
    S5.4.9.3  The cross section of the graspable portion of each 
handrail may be not less than 31.5 mm (1.25 inches) and not more than 
38 mm (1.5 inches) in diameter or width, and may have not less than a 
3.2 mm (0.125 inch) radii on any corner.
    S5.4.9.4  The vertical projection of the graspable portion of each 
handrail must intersect two vertical planes that are perpendicular to 
the direction of travel of a wheelchair on the lift when entering or 
exiting the platform, and are 203 mm (8 inches) apart.
    S5.4.9.5  Throughout the range of passenger operation, the 
handrails must move such that the position of the handrails relative to 
the platform surface does not change.
    S5.4.9.6  When tested in accordance with S6.9.1, each handrail must 
withstand 445 N (100 pounds force) applied at any point and in any 
direction on the handrail without more than 25 mm (1.00 inches) of 
displacement relative to the platform surface. After removal of the 
load, the handrail must exhibit no permanent deformation.
    S5.4.9.7  When tested in accordance with S6.9.1, 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.
    S5.4.9.8  When tested in accordance with S6.9.2, each handrail must 
withstand 1,112 N (250 pounds force) applied at any point and in any 
direction on the handrail without sustaining any failure, such as 
cracking, separation, fracture, or more than 102 mm (4 inches) of 
displacement of any point on the handrails relative to the platform 
surface.
    S5.4.10  Platform Markings. For platform lifts designed for 
installation

[[Page 46252]]

on buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR greater than 
3,220 kg (7,100 lbs), throughout the range of passenger operation, all 
edges of the platform surface, the visible edge of the vehicle floor or 
bridging device adjacent to the platform lift, and any designated 
standing area must be outlined. The outlines must be at least 25 mm (1 
inch) wide and of a color that contrasts with its background by 60 
percent, determined according to the following equation:

Contrast=100  x  [(L1-L2)/L1]

where:
    L1 = luminance of the lighter color or shade, and
    L2 = luminance of the darker color or shade.

    L1 and L2 are measured perpendicular to the platform surface 
with illumination provided by a diffuse light and a resulting 
illuminance of the platform surface of 323 lm/m\2\ (30 lumen/sqft).

    S5.4.11  Platform lighting. Platform lifts designed for 
installation on buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR 
greater than 3,220 kg (7,100 lbs) must have a light or a set of lights 
which provides at least 54 lm/m\2\ (5 lumen/sqft) of illuminance on all 
portions of the surface of the lift platform, throughout the range of 
passenger operation. The illuminance measured on all portions of the 
surface of a passenger unloading ramp at ground level must be at least 
11 lm/m\2\ (1 lumen/sqft).
    S5.4.12  Platform slip resistance. When tested in accordance with 
S6.2, the coefficient of friction, in any direction, of any part of a 
wet platform surface may be not less than 0.65.
    S5.5  Structural integrity.
    S5.5.1  Fatigue endurance. Platform lifts designed for installation 
on buses and MPVs with a GVWR greater than 3,220 kg (7,100 lbs.) must 
be operated through 15,600 cycles as specified in S6.7. Lifts designed 
for installation on vehicles other than buses and multipurpose vehicles 
with a GVWR over 3,220 kg (7,100 lbs) must be operated through 4,400 
cycles as specified in S6.7. No separation, fracture, or breakage of 
any vehicle or lift component may occur as a result of conducting the 
fatigue test in S6.7.
    S5.5.2  Proof load. The platform lift must be capable of holding an 
816 kg mass (1,800 lb load), as specified in S6.8, without separation, 
fracture, or breakage of any vehicle or lift component. After the test, 
the lift must pass Static Load Test I, see S6.6.
    S5.5.3  Ultimate Load. The platform lift must be capable of holding 
a 1,088 kg mass (2,400 lb load), as specified in S6.11, without 
separation, fracture, or breakage of the platform, supporting 
structure, or lifting mechanism.
    S5.6  Platform Free Fall Limits. In the event of any single-point 
failure of systems for raising, lowering or supporting the platform, 
the platform, loaded as specified in S6.6.3, may not fall vertically 
faster than 305 mm (12 inches) per second or change angular orientation 
more than 2 degrees from the orientation prior to the failure. This 
requirement applies whenever the lift is under primary power source 
operation or manual backup operation.
    S5.7  Control systems.
    S5.7.1  The platform lift must meet the requirements of S5.7.2 
through S5.7.8 and, when operated by means of the control system 
specified in 5.7.2, must perform the lift operations specified in S6.6.
    S5.7.2  The platform lift system must have a control system that 
performs at least the following functions:
    (a) Activates the control system by providing power to the system. 
This function must be identified as ``POWER'' on the control.
    (b) Moves the lift from a stowed position to a vehicle floor level 
loading position. This function must be identified as ``DEPLOY'' or 
``UNFOLD'' on the control.
    (c) Lowers the lift platform. This function must be identified as 
``DOWN'' on the control.
    (d) Raises the lift platform. This function must be identified as 
``UP'' on the control.
    (e) Moves the lift from a vehicle floor level loading position to a 
stowed position. This function must be identified as ``STOW'' or 
``FOLD'' on the control.
    S5.7.3  The functions specified in S5.7.2 must be activated in a 
momentary fashion, by one switch or by a combination of switches.
    S5.7.4  The control system specified in S5.7.2 must prevent the 
simultaneous performance of more than one function.
    S5.7.5  For platform lifts designed for installation on buses and 
multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR greater than 3,220 kg 
(7,100 lbs), all controls, including those specified in S5.7.2, must be 
positioned together and in a location such that a person standing at 
and facing the controls has a direct, unobstructed view of the platform 
lift passenger and the passenger's wheelchair, if the passenger is 
using a wheelchair, throughout the lift's range of passenger operation. 
Additional power controls may be positioned in other locations.
    S5.7.6  Simple instructions regarding the platform lift operating 
procedures, including backup operations as specified by S5.9, must be 
located near the controls. These instructions must be written in 
English.
    S5.7.7  Each operating function of each platform lift control must 
be identified with characters which are at least 2.5 mm (0.1 inch) in 
height. For lifts designed for installation on buses and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles with a GVWR greater than 3,220 kg (7,100 lbs), the 
characters must be illuminated in accordance with S5.3 of Standard No. 
101, when the vehicle's headlights are illuminated.
    S5.7.8  The power switch must have two functions: ``ON'' and 
``OFF''. The ``ON'' function must allow platform lift operation. When 
the power switch is in the ``ON'' position, an indicator light near the 
controls must be activated. The ``OFF'' function must prevent lift 
movement.
    S5.7.9  Any single-point failure in the control system may not 
prevent the operation of any of the interlocks as specified in S5.10.
    S5.8  Jacking prevention.
    S5.8.1  Except when the platform lift is operated in backup mode as 
required by S5.9, during the lift operations specified in S6.6, the 
lift system must meet the requirements of S5.8.2, both with and without 
a 272 kg mass (600 lb load) on the lift.
    S5.8.2  The control system or platform lift design must prevent 
raising of any portion of the vehicle by the lift system when lowering 
the lift is attempted while the lift is at the ground level loading 
position.
    S5.9  Backup operation. 
    S5.9.1  During the lift operations specified in S6.6, the platform 
lift must meet the requirements of S5.9.2, both with and without a 272 
kg mass (600 lb load) on the lift.
    S5.9.2  The platform lift must be equipped with a manual backup 
operating mode that can, in the event there is a loss of the primary 
power source for operating the lift, lower the platform to the ground 
level loading position and raise the platform to the vehicle floor 
level loading position from any position in its cycle. During backup 
operation of the lift, the wheelchair retention device and inner roll 
stop must be manually deployable and stowable. The operating 
instructions near the lift controls and in the vehicle owner's manual, 
as specified in S5.7.6 and S5.12.3, must contain information on manual 
operation of the wheelchair retention device and inner roll stop during 
backup operation of the lift.
    S5.10  Interlocks. 
    S5.10.1  Except when the platform lift is operated in backup mode 
as required by S5.9, during the lift

[[Page 46253]]

operations specified in S6.6, the requirements of S5.10.2 must be met, 
both with and without a 272 kg mass (600 lb load) on the lift.
    S5.10.2  The platform lift system must have interlocks that 
prevent:
    S5.10.2.1  Forward or rearward mobility of the vehicle unless the 
platform lift is stowed;
    S5.10.2.2  Operation of the platform lift from the stowed position 
until forward and rearward mobility of the vehicle is inhibited, by 
means of a parking brake, placing the transmission in park, or other 
positive device other than the vehicle's service brakes, and the lift 
access door is open;
    S5.10.2.3  Except for platform lifts designed to be occupied while 
stowed, stowing of the platform lift when occupied by any portion of a 
passenger's body, and/or a mobility aid;
    S5.10.2.4  Movement of the platform lift up or down unless any 
inner roll stop required to comply with S5.4.8.3 is deployed;
    S5.10.2.5  Movement of the platform lift up or down when the 
platform surface is above the horizontal plane which is 76 mm (3 
inches) above the ground level loading positions unless the wheelchair 
retention device required to comply with S5.4.7 is deployed;
    S5.10.2.6  Stowing of the wheelchair retention device required to 
comply with S5.4.7 unless the platform surface is below the horizontal 
plane 76 mm (3 inches) above the ground level loading position.
    S5.10.2.7  Further downward motion of the platform lift, when the 
lift contacts an object in its path while lowering;
    S5.10.2.8  In the case of a platform lift that is equipped with an 
outer barrier, deployment of the outer barrier, when occupied by any 
portion of a passenger's body or mobility aid;
    S5.10.2.9  Deployment of any inner roll stop required to comply 
with S5.4.8.3, when the inner roll stop is occupied by any portion of a 
passenger's body or mobility aid; and
    S5.10.2.10  Movement of the platform lift down, when both the 
vehicle floor or any bridging device and lift platform are occupied by 
any portion of a passenger's body or mobility aid.
    S5.11  Operations counter. The platform lift must have an 
operations or cycle counter that records each complete up and down 
cycle through the range of passenger operation. Determination of 
compliance with this requirement will be made during the lift 
operations specified in S6.6.
    S5.12  Vehicle owner's manual insert. The lift manufacturer must 
provide with the lift inserts for the vehicle owner's manual which 
provide specific information about the platform lift:
    S5.12.1  For vehicles other than buses and multipurpose vehicles 
with a GVWR over 3,220 kg (7,100 lbs), the dimensions which constitute 
the unobstructed platform operating volume;
    S5.12.2  Maintenance schedule based on the number of cycles on the 
operations counter specified in S5.11.
    S5.12.3  Simple instructions regarding the platform lift operating 
procedures, including backup operations, as specified by S5.9.
    S5.13  Installation instructions insert. The manufacturer of a 
platform lift must include with the installation instructions for each 
lift, a page that identifies:
    (a) The vehicles on which the lift is designed to be installed. 
Vehicles may be identified by listing the make and model of the 
vehicles for which the lift is suitable, or by specifying the design 
elements that would make a vehicle an appropriate host for the 
particular lift, and for which the platform lift manufacturer has 
certified compliance.
    (b) Any informational material that must be placed in the vehicle 
owner's manual or elsewhere in the vehicle in order to comply with the 
requirements of this standard.
    S6.  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 S6.5 through S6.8 are performed on a single lift and 
vehicle combination. The tests specified in S6.2 through S6.4, and S6.9 
through S6.11 may be performed with the same lift installed on a test 
jig rather than in a vehicle. Certification tests of requirements in 
S5.1 through S5.11 may be performed on a single lift and vehicle 
combination, except for the requirements of S5.5.3. Attachment hardware 
may be replaced if damaged by removal and reinstallation of the lift 
between a test jig and vehicle.
    S6.1  Test Pallet and Load. The surface of the test pallet that 
rests on the platform used for the tests specified in S6.6 through S6.8 
and S6.11 has sides that measure between 660 mm (26 inches) and 686 mm 
(27 inches). For the tests specified in S6.6 and S6.7, the test pallet 
is made of a rectangular steel plate of uniform thickness and the load 
which rests on the test pallet is made of rectangular steel plate or 
plates of uniform thickness and sides that measure between 533 mm (21 
inches) and 686 mm (27 inches).
    S6.2  Slip Resistance Test. 
    S6.2.1  To determine compliance with S5.4.12:
    S6.2.2  Clean any 450mm  x  100mm (17.5 in  x  3.94 in) section of 
the platform, with household glass cleaner (ammonia hydroxide 
solution). Wet the cleaned section of the platform by evenly spraying 3 
ml (0.10 oz) of distilled water per 100 cm2 (15.5 
in2)of surface area. Begin the test specified in S6.2.3 
within 30 seconds of completion of the wetting process.
    S6.2.3  Use the test procedure defined in ANSI/RESNA Standard WC13-
1991, ``Wheelchairs--Determination of Coefficient of Friction of Test 
Surfaces'' except for clauses 5.3, Force gage and 6, Test procedure, on 
the wet section of platform. In lieu of clauses 5.3 and 6.1, implement 
the requirements of S6.2.3.1 and 6.2.3.2.
    S6.2.3.1  Force Gage. The pulling force is measured, at a frequency 
of at least 10 Hz, by a force gauge that has been calibrated to an 
accuracy of 2 percent in the range of 25N to 100N.
    S6.2.3.2  Test procedure. Before the test, prepare the surface of 
the test rubber by lightly abrading with waterproof silicon carbide 
paper, grade P120, weight D (120 wet and dry). Then wipe the surface 
clean with a dry cloth or brush. No solvents or other cleaning 
materials may be used. To determine the coefficient of friction for the 
wet platform section pull the test block, with the test rubber 
attached, by machine at a rate of 20  2mm/s. The machine 
and test block must be rigidly linked by a device which exhibits a 
stiffness  1x10\5\ N/m. Pull the test block for a minimum of 
13 seconds. Record the pulling force over the final 10 seconds of the 
test at a minimum frequency of 10 Hz. Repeat the test at least 5 times, 
on any one area of the platform surface, in a single direction. 
Calculate the average pulling force for each trial, F1 
through Fn, where n is the number of trials. Measure the 
weight of the test block with the force gauge and call it 
Fb. Calculate the coefficient of friction, 
p, from the following equation:

[[Page 46254]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27JY00.000

    S6.3  Environmental Resistance Test.
    S6.3.1  Perform the procedures specified in S6.3.2 through S6.3.5 
to determine compliance with S5.3.
    S6.3.2  Attachment hardware, as specified in S5.3.1, and externally 
mounted platform lifts or components, as specified in S5.3.2, must be 
tested in accordance with American Society of Testing and Materials 
B117-94, ``Standard Method of Salt Spray (Fog) Testing.'' Any surface 
coating or material not intended for permanent retention on the metal 
parts during service life must be removed prior to testing. Except as 
specified in S6.3.3, the period of the test is to be 50 hours, 
consisting of two periods of 24 hours exposure to salt spray followed 
by one hour drying.
    S6.3.3  For attachment hardware located within the occupant 
compartment of the motor vehicle and not at or near the floor, the 
period of the test is to be 25 hours, consisting of one period of 24 
hours exposure to salt spray followed by one hour drying.
    S6.3.4  For performance of this test, externally mounted platform 
lifts or components may be installed on test jigs rather than on the 
vehicle. The lift must be in a stowed position. The configuration of 
the test setup must be such that areas of the lift which would be 
exposed to the outside environment during actual use are not protected 
from the salt spray by the test jig.
    S6.3.5  At the end of the test, any surface exposed to the salt 
spray must be washed thoroughly with water to remove the salt. After 
drying for at least 24 hours under laboratory conditions the platform 
lift or components is to be examined for ferrous corrosion on 
significant surfaces, that is, all surfaces that can be contacted by a 
sphere 2 centimeters in diameter.
    S6.4  Wheelchair Retention Impact Test.
    S6.4.1  Determine compliance with S5.4.7.1 and S5.4.7.2 using the 
test device specified in S6.4.2, under the procedures specified in 
S6.4.3 and S6.4.4.
    S6.4.2  The test device is an unloaded power wheelchair whose size 
is appropriate for a 95th percentile male and that has the dimensions, 
configuration and components described in paragraphs (a)-(j). If the 
dimension in paragraph (i) is measured for a particular wheelchair by 
determining its tipping angle, the batteries are prevented from moving 
from their original position--
    (a) A cross-braced steel frame;
    (b) A sling seat integrated in the frame;
    (c) Belt drive;
    (d) Detachable footrests, with the lowest point of the footrest 
adjustable in a range not less than 25 mm (1 inch) to 123 mm (5 inches) 
from the ground;
    (e) Pneumatic rear wheels with a diameter not less than 495 mm 
(19.5 inches) and not more than 521 mm (20.5 inches);
    (f) Pneumatic front wheels with a diameter not less than 190 mm 
(7.5 inches) and not more than 216 mm (8.5 inches);
    (g) A distance between front and rear axles not less than 457 mm 
(18 inches) and not more than 533 mm (21 inches);
    (h) A horizontal distance between rear axle and center of gravity 
not less than 114 mm (4.5 inches) and not more than 152 mm (6.0 
inches);
    (i) A vertical distance between ground and center of gravity not 
less than 260 mm (10.25 inches) and not more than 298 mm (11.75 
inches);
    (j) A mass of not less than 72.5 kg (160 lbs) and not more than 
86.0 kg (190 lbs).
    S6.4.3  Conduct the test in accordance with the procedures in 
paragraphs (a) through (e) to determine compliance with S5.4.7.1. In 
the case of platform lifts designed for installation on vehicles with a 
GVWR equal to or less than 3,220 kg (7,100 lbs), perform both (e)(1) 
and (2), unless the operating directions specify a required direction 
of wheelchair movement onto the platform. When a direction is indicated 
in the operating instructions, perform the procedure specified in 
paragraph (e)(1) or (2) with the test device oriented as required by 
the operating instructions.
    (a) Place the lift platform at the vehicle floor level loading 
position.
    (b) If the wheelchair retention device is an outer barrier, the 
footrests are adjusted such that at their lowest point they have a 
height 25 mm (1 inch) less than the outer barrier. If the wheelchair 
retention device is not an outer barrier, the footrests are adjusted 
such that at their lowest point they have a height 51 mm (2 inches) 
above the platform.
    (c) Position the test device with its plane of symmetry coincident 
with the lift reference plane and at a distance from the platform 
sufficient to achieve the impact velocities required by paragraph (e) 
of this section.
    (d) Accelerate the test device onto the platform under its own 
power such that the test device impacts the wheelchair retention device 
at each speed, direction, and load condition combination specified in 
paragraph (e) of this section. Maintain power to the drive motors until 
all wheelchair motion has ceased except rotation of the drive wheels. 
Note the position of the wheelchair after its motion has ceased 
following each impact to determine compliance with S5.4.7. If 
necessary, after each impact, adjust or replace the footrests to 
restore them to their original condition.
    (e) The test device is operated at the following speeds, in the 
following directions--
    (1) 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), forward, with a load of 0 kg (0 lbs).
    (2) 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), rearward, with a load of 0 kg (0 lbs).
    S6.4.4  For rotary platform lifts, conduct the test under the 
procedures in (a)-(e) to determine compliance with S5.4.7.2. In the 
case of lifts designed for installation on vehicles with a GVWR less 
than or equal to 3,220 kg (7,100 lbs), perform the test in both 
possible test device orientations unless a required direction of 
wheelchair movement onto the platform is indicated in the operating 
instructions. For lifts designed for installation on vehicles with a 
GVWR less than or equal to 3,220 kg (7,100 lbs) where a required 
direction of wheelchair movement onto the platform is indicated in the 
operating instructions, perform the test with the test device oriented 
as required by the operating instructions.
    (a) Adjust the footrests of the test device to the shortest length. 
Place the test device on the platform with its plane of symmetry 
coincident with the lift reference plane.
    (b) Position the platform surface 90 mm (3.5 in)  10 mm 
(0.4 in) above the ground level position.
    (c) Slowly move the test device in the forward direction until it 
contacts a wheelchair retention device. Activate the controller of the 
test device such that, if the test device were unloaded and 
unrestrained on a flat, level surface, it would achieve a maximum 
forward velocity of not less than 2.0 m/s (4.4 mph) and not more than 
2.1 m/s (4.7 mph).

[[Page 46255]]

    (d) Realign the test device on the platform so that its plane of 
symmetry is coincident with the lift reference plane. Slowly move the 
test device in the rearward direction until it contacts a wheelchair 
retention device. Activate the controller of the test device such that, 
if the test device were unloaded and unrestrained on a flat, level 
surface, it would achieve a maximum rearward velocity of not less than 
1.75 m/s (3.9 mph) and not more than 1.85 m/s (4.1 mph).
    (e) During the impacts specified in paragraphs (c) and (d), 
maintain power to the drive motors until all test device motion has 
ceased except rotation of the drive wheels. Note the position of the 
test device after its motion has ceased following each impact to 
determine compliance with S5.4.7.2.
    S6.5  Inner Roll Stop Test. Determine compliance with S5.4.8 using 
the test device specified in S6.4.2, in an unloaded condition, in 
accordance with the procedures specified in (a) through (f).
    (a) Place the lift platform at the ground level loading position, 
such that the platform is level.
    (b) Adjust the footrests of the test device to the shortest length. 
Position the test device on the ground at a distance from the platform 
sufficient to achieve the impact velocity required by (c) of this 
section. The plane of symmetry of the test device is coincident with 
the lift reference plane and the forward direction of travel is onto 
the platform.
    (c) Accelerate the test device onto the platform such that the 
vehicle 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). Determine compliance 
with S5.4.8.3(a).
    (d) If necessary, adjust or replace the footrests to restore them 
to the condition they were in prior to the impact. Reposition the test 
device on the platform with its plane of symmetry coincident with the 
lift reference plane. Slowly move the test device in the forward 
direction until it contacts the inner roll stop.
    (e) Apply a static load to the inner roll stop by activating the 
controller of the test device such that, if the test device were 
unrestrained on a flat and level surface, it would achieve a maximum 
forward velocity of not less than 2.0 m/s and not more than 2.1 m/s.
    (f) Raise the platform to the vehicle loading position. Determine 
compliance with S5.4.8.3(b).
    S6.6  Static Load Test I--Working Load.
    S6.6.1  By use of the lift controls specified in S5.7.2, perform 
the operations specified in S6.6.2 through S6.6.8 in the order they are 
specified. During the lift operations specified in:
    (a) S6.6.3, determine compliance of the platform lift with S5.1.2;
    (b) S6.6.3 through S6.6.8, determine compliance of the platform 
lift with S5.7.2 through 5.7.8 and 5.10.2.1;
    (c) S6.6.4 through 6.6.7, determine compliance of the platform lift 
with S5.2.2.1, S5.2.3, S5.2.4, S5.4.2 through S5.4.6, S5.4.7.4, 
S5.4.9.2 through S5.4.9.5, S5.4.10, S5.4.11, S5.10.2.4, S5.10.2.5 and 
S5.11;
    (d) S6.6.3 and S6.6.8, determine compliance of the platfrom lift 
with S5.2.2.2;
    (e) S6.6.9, determine compliance of the platform lift with S5.10;
    (f) S6.6.2 and S6.6.3, determine compliance of the platform lift 
with S5.10.2.2;
    (g) S6.6.7 and S6.6.8, determine compliance of the platform lift 
with S5.10.2.3;
    (h) S6.6.5 and S6.6.7, determine compliance of the platform lift 
with S5.10.2.7;
    (i) S6.6.4 and S6.6.6, determine compliance of the platform lift 
with S5.8, S5.10.2.6, S5.10.2.8 and S5.10.2.9.
    S6.6.2  Put the lift platform in the stowed position.
    S6.6.3  Deploy the lift platform. Center a static load on the upper 
surface of the test pallet such that the total mass (weight) of the 
static load and test pallet is 272 kg (600 lbs). Center the loaded test 
pallet on the platform surface.
    S6.6.4  Lower the lift platform from the vehicle floor level 
loading position to the ground level loading position, stopping once 
midway between the two positions. Remove the test pallet from the lift 
platform.
    S6.6.5  Raise the lift platform from the ground level loading 
position to the vehicle floor level loading position, stopping once 
midway between the two positions.
    S6.6.6  Lower the lift platform from the vehicle floor level 
loading position to the ground level loading position, stopping once 
midway between the two positions.
    S6.6.7  Center the loaded test pallet on the platform surface. 
Raise the lift platform from the ground level loading position to the 
vehicle floor level loading position, stopping once midway between the 
two positions.
    S6.6.8  Remove the pallet from the lift platform. Stow the lift.
    S6.6.9  Turn power off to the lift and repeat 6.6.3 through 6.6.8, 
using the backup operating mode as specified by S5.9.
    S6.7  Fatigue endurance test.
    S6.7.1  Perform the test procedure specified in S6.7.2 through 
S6.7.9 and determine compliance with S5.5.1.
    S6.7.2  Put the unloaded lift platform at the ground level loading 
position. Center a static load on the upper surface of the test pallet 
such that the total weight (mass) of the static load and test pallet is 
272 kg (600 lbs.). Center the loaded test pallet on the platform 
surface.
    S6.7.3  For platform lifts designed for installation on buses and 
MPVs with GVWR greater than 3,220 kg (7,100 lbs.), by use of the lift 
controls specified in S5.7.2, perform the operation specified in 
S6.7.3.1 through S6.7.3.3 in the order they are given.
    S6.7.3.1  Raise and lower the lift platform through the range of 
passenger operation 3,900 times.
    S6.7.3.2  Remove the test pallet from the lift platform. Raise the 
lift platform to the vehicle floor loading position, stow the lift, 
deploy the lift and lower the lift platform to the ground level loading 
position 3,900 times.
    S6.7.3.3  Perform the test sequence specified in S6.7.3.1 and 
S6.7.3.2 four times.
    S6.7.4  For platform lifts designed for installation on vehicles 
other than buses and multipurpose vehicles with a GVWR over 3,220 kg 
(7,100 lbs), by use of the lift controls specified in S5.7.2, perform 
the operation specified in S6.7.4.1 through S6.7.4.3 in the order they 
are given.
    S6.7.4.1  Raise and lower the lift platform through the range of 
passenger operation 1,100 times.
    S6.7.4.2  Remove the test pallet from the lift platform. Raise the 
lift platform to the vehicle floor loading position, stow the lift, 
deploy the lift and lower the lift platform to the ground level loading 
position 1,100 times.
    S6.7.4.3  Perform the test sequence specified in S6.7.3.1 and 
S6.7.4.2 four times.
    S6.7.5  Each sequence of lift operations specified in S6.7.3.1, 
S6.7.3.2, S6.7.4.1 and S6.7.4.2 must be done in blocks of 10 cycles 
with a 1 minute maximum rest period between each cycle in any block. 
The minimum rest period between each block of 10 cycles is to be such 
that the temperature of the lift components is maintained below the 
values specified by the manufacturer or that degrade the lift function.
    S6.7.6  During the test sequence specified in S6.7.2 through 
S6.7.4, perform any lift maintenance as specified in the vehicle 
owner's manual.
    S6.8  Static Load Test II--proof load.

[[Page 46256]]

    S6.8.1  Perform the test procedures specified in S6.8.2 through 
S6.8.5 and determine compliance with S5.5.2.
    S6.8.2  Center a static load on the upper surface of the test 
pallet such that the total mass (weight) of the static load and test 
pallet is 816 kg (1,800 lbs).
    S6.8.3  When the lift platform is at the vehicle floor level 
loading position, center the loaded test pallet on the platform 
surface. Fully place the pallet on the platform within 1 minute of 
beginning to place it.
    S6.8.4  Two minutes after fully placing the loaded test pallet on 
the platform surface, remove the loaded test pallet and examine the 
platform lift and vehicle for separation, fracture or breakage.
    S6.8.5  After completing the static load test specified in S6.8.2 
through S6.8.4, repeat Static Load Test I specified in S6.6.
    S6.9  Handrail test.
    S6.9.1  To determine compliance with S5.4.9.6 and S5.4.9.7, apply 
4.4 N (1 lb. force) through an area of 1290 mm \2\ (2 in.\2\) in any 
direction at any point on the handrail. Use this position of the 
handrail relative to the lift platform as the reference point for the 
measurement of handrail displacement. Apply 445 N (100 lb. force) 
through an area of 1290 mm \2\ (2 in.\2\) in a direction and location 
opposite to that of the 4.4 N (1 lb. force). Attain the force within 1 
minute after beginning to apply it. Five seconds after attaining the 
force, measure the amount of displacement of the handrail relative to 
the reference point, and measure the distance between the outside of 
the handrail and the nearest portion of the vehicle. Release the 445 N 
(100 lb. force) and reapply the 4.4 N (1 lb. force) in the direction 
and location that it was first applied. Five seconds after attaining 
the force, measure the position of the handrail with respect to the 
reference point to determine if there is any permanent deformation of 
the handrail relative to the lift platform.
    S6.9.2.  To determine compliance with S5.4.9.8, apply 4.4 N (1 lb. 
force) through an area of 1,290 mm \2\ (2 in \2\) in any direction at 
any point on the handrail. Use this position of the handrail relative 
to the lift platform as the reference point for the measurement of 
handrail displacement. Apply 1,112 N (250 lb. force) through an area of 
1,290 mm \2\ (2 in \2\) in a direction and location opposite to that of 
the 1 4.4 N (1 lb force). Attain the force within 1 minute after 
beginning to apply it. Five seconds after attaining the force, measure 
the amount of displacement of the handrail relative to the reference 
point. Maintain the force for two minute. Release the force and inspect 
the handrail for cracking, separations or fractures.
    S6.10  Wheelchair Retention Overload Test.
    S6.10.1  Perform the test procedures as specified in S6.10.2 
through S6.10.5 to determine compliance with S5.4.7.2.
    S6.10.2  Position the platform surface 89 mm (3.5 inches) above the 
ground level loading position. Apply 7,117 N (1,600 lb. force) to the 
wheelchair retention device in a direction parallel to both the 
platform lift and platform reference planes. Attain the force within 1 
minute after beginning to apply it.
    S6.10.3  For a wheelchair retention device that is in the form of 
an outer barrier, apply the force through a rectangular area with a 
height of 25 mm (1 inch) and a width spanning the entire barrier. 
Distribute the force evenly about an axis 64 mm (2.5 inches) above the 
platform reference plane. If the bottom edge of the outer barrier falls 
51 mm (2 inches) or more above the platform reference plane, distribute 
the force about an axis 13 mm (0.5 inches) above the bottom edge of the 
barrier.
    S6.10.4  For a wheelchair retention device other than an outer 
barrier, place the test device specified in S6.4.2 on the lift platform 
with its plane of symmetry coincident with the lift reference plane and 
directed such that forward motion is impeded by the wheelchair 
retention device. Move the test device forward until it contacts the 
wheelchair retention device. Remove the test device from the platform. 
Apply the force specified in S6.10.2 distributed evenly at all areas of 
the wheelchair retention device which made contact with the test device 
when it was moved forward. Attain the force within 1 minute after 
beginning to apply it.
    S6.10.5  After maintaining the force for two minutes, remove it and 
examine the wheelchair retention device for separation, fracture or 
breakage.
    S6.11  Static Load Test III--ultimate load.
    S6.11.1  Perform the test procedures as specified in S6.11.2 
through S6.11.5 to determine compliance with S5.5.3.
    S6.11.2  Reinforce the vehicle structure where the lift is attached 
such that it will not deform to an extent perceptible without a 
measuring instrument during application of the load specified in 
S6.11.3 or remove the platform lift from the vehicle and install it on 
a test jig that will not deform to an extent perceptible without a 
measuring instrument during application of the load specified in 
S6.11.3.
    S6.11.3  Place a static load on the upper surface of the test 
pallet such that the center of gravity of the load is over the 
geometric center of the pallet and the total mass (weight) of the 
static load and test pallet is 1,088 kg (2,400 pounds).
    S6.11.4  When the lift platform is at the vehicle floor level 
loading position, center the loaded test pallet on the platform 
surface. Fully place the pallet on the platform within 1 minute of 
beginning to place it.
    S6.11.5  Two minutes after fully placing the loaded test pallet on 
the platform surface, remove the loaded test pallet and examine the 
platform lift for separation, fracture or breakage.

[[Page 46257]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27JY00.001

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

[[Page 46258]]

    5. Section 571.142 would be added to read as follows:
    Sec. 571.142 Standard No. 142; Platform lift installations in motor 
vehicles.
    S1. Scope. This standard specifies requirements for vehicles 
equipped with a platform lift used to assist persons with limited 
mobility in entering or leaving a vehicle.
    S2. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to prevent injuries 
and fatalities to passengers and bystanders during the operation of 
platform lifts installed in motor vehicles.
    S3. Application. This standard applies to motor vehicles, with a 
platform lift to carry passengers into and out of the vehicle.
    S4. Requirements.
    S4.1  Installation Requirements.
    S4.1.1  Each vehicle must be equipped with a platform lift 
certified as meeting Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 141, 
Lift Systems for Motor Vehicles (Sec. 571.141).
    S4.1.2  Platform lifts must be attached to the vehicle in 
accordance with the installation instructions or procedures provided 
pursuant to S5.13 of Standard 141. The vehicle must be of a type 
identified in the installation instructions as appropriate for the 
platform lift and as certified by the platform lift manufacturer.
    S4.1.3 Once installed, the platform lift must be fully operational 
and capable of meeting all operational tests specified in the platform 
lift manufacturer's installation instructions.

    S4.2  Owner's Manual Insert Requirements. The vehicle owner's 
manual must contain inserts pertaining to the platform lift which 
specify:
    S4.2.1  For vehicles other than buses and multipurpose vehicles 
with a GVWR over 3,220 kg (7,100 lbs), the dimensions which constitute 
the unobstructed platform operating volume;
    S4.2.2  For vehicles with a GVWR less than or equal to 3,220 kg 
(71,000 lbs), information on whether a wheelchair user must back on to 
the lift platform due to the absence of an inner roll stop;
    S4.2.3  Maintenance schedule based on the number of cycles on the 
operations counter specified in S5.11 of Standard 141; and
    S4.2.4  Simple instructions regarding the platform lift operating 
procedures, including back-up operations, as specified in S5.9 of 
Standard 141.
    S4.3  Control System.
    S4.3.1  For buses and MPVs with a GVWR greater than 3,220 kg (7,100 
lbs), any and all controls provided for the lift by the platform lift 
manufacturer, including those specified in S5.7 of standard 141, must 
be located together and in a position such that the control operator 
has a direct, unobstructed view of the platform lift passenger and 
their wheelchair (if the passenger is using a wheelchair) throughout 
the lift's range of passenger operation. Additional power controls may 
be located in other positions.
    S4.3.2  Simple instructions regarding the platform lift operating 
procedures, including backup operations as specified by S5.9 of 
Standard 141, must be located near the controls. These instructions 
must be written in English.


Sec. 571.201  [Amended]

    6. Section 571.201 would be amended by removing the definition of 
``motor home'' contained in Sec. 571.201 S3, Definitions.


Sec. 571.205  [Amended]

    7. Section 571.205 would be amended by removing the definition of 
``motor home'' contained in Sec. 571.205 S4, Definitions.


Sec. 571.208  [Amended]

    8. Section 571.208 would be amended by removing and reserving 
S4.2.4.1(a).

    Issued on July 20, 2000.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Performance Safety Standards.
[FR Doc. 00-18773 Filed 7-21-00; 2:04 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P