[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 249 (Friday, December 27, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 79416-79451]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-31891]



[[Page 79415]]

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

Part IV





Department of Transportation





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



National Highway Traffic Safety Administration



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



49 CFR Part 571



Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Platform Lift Systems for 
Accessible Motor Vehicles, Platform Lift Installation on Motor 
Vehicles; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2002 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 79416]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-02-13917; 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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document adopts a new rule establishing two new safety 
standards: An equipment standard specifying requirements for platform 
lifts; and a vehicle standard for all vehicles equipped with such 
lifts. The new equipment standard will require platform lift 
manufacturers to ensure that their lifts meet minimum platform 
dimensions and maximum size limits on platform protrusions and gaps 
between the platform and either the vehicle floor or the ground. The 
standard also requires handrails, a threshold warning signal, and 
retaining barriers for lifts. Performance tests are specified for 
wheelchair retention on the platform, lift strength, and platform slip 
resistance. A set of interlocks is prescribed to prevent accidental 
movement of a lift and the vehicle on which the lift is installed. The 
vehicle standard will 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.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective December 27, 2004.
    The incorporation by reference of the publications listed in the 
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 
27, 2004.
    Petitions: Petitions for reconsideration must be received by 
February 10, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket and 
notice number of this document and be submitted to: Administrator, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call 
William Evans, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, at (202) 366-2272.
    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: 

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Summary of the SNPRM
III. Summary of the final rule and key differences between it and 
the SNPRM
    A. Manufacturer responsibilities under the final rule
    1. Platform lift manufacturers
    2. Vehicle manufacturers
    B. Platform lift requirements
IV. Summary of public comments
V. Need for safety standards for platform life systems
VI. Differing safety needs for private and public use platform lifts
VII. Effective dates
VIII. Platform lift requirements
    A. Threshold warning signal
    B. Platform lift operational requirements
    1. Maximum platform velocity
    2. Maximum platform acceleration
    3. Maximum noise level of public use lifts
    C. Environmental resistance
    D. Platform requirements
    1. Unobstructed platform operating volume
    2. Platform surface protrusions
    3. Gaps, transitions, and openings
    4. Platform deflection
    5. Edge guards
    6. Wheelchair retention
    7. Inner roll stop
    8. Handrails
    9. Platform markings on public use lifts
    10. Platform lighting on public use lifts
    11. Platform slip resistance
    E. Structural Integrity
    1. Fatigue endurance
    2. Proof load
    3. Ultimate load
    F. Platform free fall limits
    G. Control systems
    H. Jacking prevention
    I. Backup operation
    J. Interlocks
    K. Operations counter
    L. Owner's manual insert
    M. Installation instruction insert
    N. Test conditions and procedures
    1. Test devices
    2. Static load test I--working load
    3. Static load test II--proof load
    4. Static load test III--ultimate load
    5. Interlock test procedures
IX. Vehicle requirements
X. Benefits of the final rule
XI. Costs of the final rule
XII. Miscellaneous Issues
    A. Axle weight limitations
    B. Definitions in the FMVSS No. 403
    C. Delayed compliance with the ADA
XIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Appendix to preamble

I. Background

    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\ The ADA does not 
relieve us of these requirements. 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 U.S.C. sections 30101 et seq.
    \3\ 49 U.S.C. 30111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, we are adopting a final rule that establishes two new safety 
standards. The first, FMVSS No. 403, Platform lifts systems for motor 
vehicles, establishes minimum performance standards for platform lifts 
designed for installation on a motor vehicle. The second, FMVSS No. 
404, Platform lift installations in motor vehicles, places specific 
requirements on vehicle manufacturers or alterers who install the lifts 
on new vehicles. Under this final rule, lift manufacturers will have to 
certify that their lifts meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 403, and 
manufacturers or alterers of new vehicles will have to ensure that the 
lifts are installed according to the lift manufacturer's instructions 
by certifying compliance with FMVSS No. 404. Affixing a label on the 
lift will effect the certification of compliance with FMVSS No. 403. 
Certification of compliance with FMVSS No. 404 will be on the 
certification label already required of vehicle manufacturers and 
alterers under 49 CFR part 567.
    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

[[Page 79417]]

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 required the Architectural and Transportation Barriers 
Compliance Board (ATBCB) to issue guidelines to assist DOT in 
establishing these regulations.\4\ The regulations issued by DOT must 
be consistent with those guidelines.\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 document 
collectively refers to the ATBCB's final accessibility guidelines and 
DOT's final rule as the ``ADAAG''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 42 U.S.C. 12204.
    \5\ 42 U.S.C. 12186.
    \6\ Throughout this document, we refer to lifts covered by the 
new standards as ``platform lifts.'' The standards do 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 
standards with the needs of all mobility-impaired occupants in mind.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 standards adopted today will 
ensure a level of safety and uniformity that should 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.
    We believe the standards will be of benefit to lift manufacturers, 
vehicle manufacturers, alterers, and modifiers, as well as consumers. 
The platform lift standard was drafted to include or exceed all 
existing government (Federal Transit Administration (FTA), ADA, 
Department of Veteran's Affairs (DVA), California Title 13) and 
voluntary industry (e.g., Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)) 
standards.\7\ 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 the document in Appendix A. A lift manufacturer who 
certifies its lift to the standard should have confidence that the lift 
would also meet other major U.S. standards currently in force without 
additional testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The one area where the requirements for private use lifts do 
not meet or exceed voluntary industry standards is the specified 
minimum load. The SAE recommended practice provides for a standard 
load of 600 lb. As discussed later in this document, we are only 
requiring a specified minimum load of 400 lb for lifts certified to 
the personal use requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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). On July 27, 2000, we published a 
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) (65 FR 46228), in 
part because the comments on the 1993 NPRM were over six years old. 
That notice provided for a 60-day comment period.

II. Summary of the SNPRM

    The SNPRM differed from our original proposal in several respects. 
Most notably, the scope of our proposal was expanded to platform lifts 
installed on all motor vehicles rather than just buses. Second, we 
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 (these 
designations have been changed to FMVSS No. 403 and FMVSS No. 404, 
respectively). We believed 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.
    Other significant changes from the NPRM were the proposal of 
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, first introduced in the SNPRM, 
tentatively required platform lift manufacturers to ensure that their 
lifts meet minimum platform dimensions and maximum size limits on 
platform protrusions and gaps between the platform and either the 
vehicle floor or the ground. The proposed standard also contemplated 
requiring handrails, a threshold warning signal, and retaining barriers 
for lifts. Performance tests were specified for wheelchair retention on 
the platform, lift strength, and platform slip resistance. A set of 
interlocks was proposed to prevent accidental movement of a lift and 
the vehicle on which the lift is installed.
    The proposed vehicle standard contemplated requiring 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.
    Since 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 drafted the 
SNPRM both with the intent of protecting lift users aided by canes or 
walkers as well as lift users seated in wheelchairs, scooters, and 
other mobility devices.
    We stated the costs associated with the proposed rule should be 
relatively low because we believed that most lift manufacturers are 
already complying with the existing voluntary and Federal standards. 
Accordingly, we believed lift manufacturers generally would not need to 
make substantial changes to their existing lifts, although some work 
may be needed to fully comply with the lift standard.

[[Page 79418]]

III. Summary of the Final Rule and Key Differences Between It and the 
SNPRM

A. Manufacturer Responsibilities Under the Final Rule

1. Platform Lift Manufacturers
    As in the SNPRM, the responsibility for lift design and performance 
ultimately rests with the lift manufacturer. The lift manufacturer must 
not only provide a lift that complies with all of the performance 
requirements set forth in today's rule, but also installation 
instructions that provide sufficient direction to the lift installer so 
that the lift, when properly installed, fully complies with all the 
applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 403. Additionally, the lift 
manufacturer must determine, at the time of certification, whether the 
lift is appropriate for use by the general public rather than by a 
single individual.
2. Vehicle Manufacturers
    Vehicle manufacturers also bear responsibility under today's rule. 
While they are not responsible for the design of a particular lift, 
they are responsible for installing a lift in a manner consistent with 
both FMVSS No. 404 and the lift manufacturer's installation 
instructions. Additionally, they are responsible for making sure that 
only public use lifts are installed on buses, school buses, and multi-
purpose vehicles (MPVs), other than motor homes, with a GVWR greater 
than or equal to 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). Finally, they are responsible 
for assuring that the lift, as installed, meets all the operational 
requirements that are vehicle dependent. That is to say, the installed 
lift must operate as mandated by today's rule.

B. Platform Lift Requirements

    Although we have adopted large portions of the regulation as set 
forth in the SNPRM, we have made numerous changes in today's final 
rule. First, we have decided not to adopt three of the ten interlocks 
proposed in the SNPRM. In addition, we have changed the weight-based 
distinction for determining whether an MPV must meet the more stringent 
requirements based on anticipated use by members of the general public 
and those requirements for lifts likely to only be used by a single 
individual. The determination of when a lift must meet the public use 
requirements has been increased to a vehicle GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 
lb). We have also extended the rule's effective date from one year to 
two years. Finally, we have specified weight limits necessary to 
activate the interlocks and alerts required by today's rule. We have 
also changed the standard load for private use lifts from 272 kg (600 
lb) to the manufacturer's specified load or 181 kg (400 lb), whichever 
is greater.

IV. Summary of Public Comments

    We received 25 comments in response to the SNPRM. Four industry 
associations submitted comments on behalf of their members. The 
National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association (NMEDA) represents 
businesses that modify vehicles for persons with disabilities. The 
American Bus Association (ABA) represents bus operators, manufacturers, 
and suppliers of products and services used by the bus industry. The 
United Motorcoach Association (UMA) represents motorcoach operators and 
suppliers. The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) 
represents transit systems, product and service providers, and state 
associations and departments of transportation. According to APTA, its 
members serve over 90 percent of all people who use public 
transportation in the United States and Canada.
    The five lift manufacturers who commented, Stewart & Stevenson, 
Braun Corp, Ricon Corp., Lift-U, and Transport & Trolley, represent 
both the personal use market and the paratransit market. Seven 
companies representative of vehicle manufacturers also commented on the 
SNPRM. Blue Bird and Collins Industries (Collins) manufacture school 
buses. American Transport Corp. (ATC) and Motor Coach Industries (MCI) 
manufacture paratransit, or over-the-road buses. Prevost and VanHool 
are also bus manufactures, but did not specify in their comments what 
types of buses they manufacture. Ride-Away Corp. alters and modifies 
personal vehicles for persons with disabilities.
    Four state agencies, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation 
(Wisconsin DOT), the Oregon Department of Transportation (Oregon DOT), 
the Michigan Department of Transportation (Michigan DOT), and the New 
Jersey Transit Authority (NJ Transit), offered comment, as did two 
private citizens and one paratransit bus operator (DMN Enterprises). 
Finally, we received limited comments from R.C.A. Rubber, a rubber 
tread manufacturer, and Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems, a 
manufacturer of air brake systems and components.
    In general, the comments on most portions of the proposed standards 
set forth in the SNPRM were supportive. However, some commenters 
expressed significant, overarching concerns about the possible impact 
of two new safety standards in this area. Specifically, several lift 
manufacturers raised concerns over the cost of meeting the new 
requirements and whether the agency had demonstrated a safety need 
sufficient to justify the proposed standards. Further, several over-
the-road bus manufacturers and operators raised concerns about whether 
a new standard would delay full implementation of the ADA.
    The state governments that commented were largely supportive of the 
proposal made in the SNPRM. For example, the Wisconsin DOT stated that 
all lifts owned or operated by state or local governments within the 
state already met or exceeded the proposed requirements.

V. Need for Safety Standards for Platform Lift Systems

    As discussed in the SNPRM, we recognize that the vast majority of 
the American public does not need to use platform lifts. We believe, 
however, that individuals who do need to use them should have assurance 
that lifts are as safe as possible and should be protected from the 
risk associated with using unregulated equipment.
    We acknowledge that there is a dearth of information regarding 
injuries associated with malfunctioning lifts. We believe that, from 
1991 to 1995, at least 299,734 wheelchair users were injured. That 
figure, based on data collected by the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission during that time-frame as part of its National Electronic 
Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) database, is for all types of 
circumstances. 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 NEISS figure of 299,734 represents an overall 
injury rate among the wheelchair-using population of slightly more than 
21 percent. While only 7,121 of these people were injured during the 
five-year period as a result of interaction with a motor vehicle, 26% 
(1,366) were the direct result of some unspecified type of lift 
malfunction. When broken down on an annual basis, the NEISS data 
projects 248 injuries per year.
    We anticipate that more people will use lifts on motor vehicles 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

[[Page 79419]]

likely to go up. Indeed, our analysis has already revealed an upward 
trend in the number of lift-related injuries.
    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 under-
represent 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 that we search for injury and death information related to motor 
vehicles (e.g., police reported incidents from states, NASS, and FARS). 
Additionally, the injury count understates the number of 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.
    Recognizing the dearth of available data, we asked commenters to 
respond to several questions that we posed in the SNPRM. Specifically, 
we sought comment on the size of the potential lift using population; 
the number of lifts installed on motor vehicles since 1997, with a 
breakdown of that number between lifts that were installed by lift 
manufacturers and lifts that were installed by someone else; the number 
of MPVs with ramps instead of lifts; and how many lifts were installed 
on vehicles prior to their first sale for purposes other than resale, 
with breakdown by entity that installed them. We also sought comment on 
which of the proposed requirements would most contribute to a reduction 
of injury and why.
    Collins noted that approximately 30% of the buses it builds are 
equipped with platform lifts. It further noted that while in 1997 
approximately 15% of the buses it manufactured were equipped with a 
lift-accessible service door but were not equipped with a lift, that 
number has shrunk to about 3%. Collins posited that the new regulation 
would eliminate that portion of the market. ATC stated that since 1997 
it has installed approximately 858 lifts in their own vehicles and had 
produced approximately 171 buses with lift accessible doors but without 
a lift.
    Ricon estimated that someone other than the vehicle manufacturer 
installs approximately 40% of lifts. It noted that the percentage of 
lifts installed by lift manufacturers is negligible. NJ Transit stated 
that since 1997 all of its transit buses, cruisers, minibuses and vans 
have had lifts installed by the vehicle manufacturer.
    NMEDA noted that local dealers, who may be alterers or modifiers, 
install the vast majority of personal use lifts. It stated that local 
dealers are also responsible for installing a smaller majority of 
commercial lifts.
    The ABA and UMA stated that NHTSA had not demonstrated a sufficient 
safety need for the adoption of new FMVSSs. UMA stated that it had 
contacted its user and insurance members and had not identified a 
single instance of a disabled traveler being injured or killed because 
of a lift design problem. It maintained that the injuries of which it 
is aware have all been a result of poor maintenance or training 
practices. ABA stated that it believed the dearth of injury data after 
the passage of the ADAAG indicates that lifts perform well under the 
current set of lift requirements and that no further regulation is 
needed.
    The ABA and UMA and MCI also maintained that the proposed 
standards, if adopted, would delay the implementation of ADA 
requirements on over-the-road buses as bus operators will delay 
purchasing lift-equipped buses until bus and lift manufacturers have 
retooled their designs so as to comply with the new standards. Stewart 
& Stevenson noted that the lift industry has already expended 
significant development costs in meeting the ADAAG and California Title 
13 requirements. It stated that the proposed requirements would impose 
additional costs on the lift manufacturer, vehicle manufacturer, and 
consumer.
    Mirroring the argument by UMA that operator error was a larger 
problem than lift malfunction, DMN Enterprises and MCI argued that the 
proposed standards do not adequately consider the presence of a trained 
lift operator on transit vehicles. DMN Enterprises also believed that 
the costs might be minimal for several of the proposed requirements, 
but that the additional costs in several areas such as platform 
deflection, interlocks, and angular orientation during free fall would 
require major redesign and potentially high costs. It also asked why 
NHTSA did not consider adopting the California Title 13 test 
requirements rather than devising new requirements. Finally, it urged 
NHTSA to commit to developing standards addressing ramps and securement 
devices since the transit industry is moving towards greater use of 
ramps and less on platform lifts.
    We acknowledge the dearth of data typically relied on by NHTSA in 
determining whether a particular safety standard meets the need for 
motor vehicle safety. However, as discussed above, we do not believe 
that the lack of concrete data necessarily means that there is no need 
to regulate the safety of platform lifts. Our determination that 
today's standards meet the requisite need for safety is based primarily 
on engineering assessments made by the SAE, FTA, and DVA, and verified 
by NHTSA, that certain safety features are needed for platform lifts. 
Today's rule merely establishes measurable performance standards that 
incorporate the existing recommended practices and guidelines.

VI. Differing Safety Needs for Private and Public Use Platform Lifts

    In the SNPRM, we discussed whether it would be appropriate to have 
fewer requirements for platform lifts installed on MPVs than for those 
installed on buses. The reason for that difference is that lifts 
designed for MPVs have different usage patterns than those designed for 
buses. We proposed that buses and MPVs greater than 3,200 kg (7,100 
lbs) meet stricter requirements than other vehicles. At that time, we 
believed that this was an appropriate cut-off, given that most of these 
larger vehicles are for public transit and paratransit use, instead of 
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 appeared appropriate. We noted that 
where the ADA imposes requirements on commercial entities and those 
entities use a vehicle that weighs less than 3,200 kg, the commercial 
entity would still have to meet the applicable ADA requirement. We then 
requested comment on whether it is appropriate to have less stringent 
requirements for lifts designed for installation on motor homes, 
trucks, truck tractors, trailers, and MPVs less than 3,200 kg. We also 
sought comment on whether 3,200 kg was the correct breakpoint, and if 
not, what was.
    Several commenters, including individuals, lift manufacturers, 
modifiers and vehicle manufacturers stated that the breakdown of lift 
requirements based on GVWR was unworkable since many individuals 
purchase vehicles that have a GVWR greater than 3,200 kg to accommodate 
the needed vehicle modifications or to provide additional cargo 
capacity. The majority of commenters argued that the division should be 
based on whether the lift would be used in a commercial setting or 
solely for personal use. NMEDA suggested the lift manufacturers be 
required to mark their lifts as suitable for personal or

[[Page 79420]]

commercial use. Collins and Ride-away suggested the GVWR break-point be 
raised above 3,200 kg, with Collins suggesting a division at 4,536 kg 
(10,000 lb) GVWR.
    Additionally, a private citizen and MCI argued that the 
requirements for private-use lifts should be no less stringent than 
those used for transporting the general public. MCI noted that 
operators of public-use lifts are trained in the proper operation of 
the equipment and, as demonstrated by NHTSA's own data analysis, that 
fewer injuries occur on lifts installed in buses than on lifts 
installed in MPVs. Braun supported adopting less stringent requirements 
for personal-use lifts.
    As discussed in the SNPRM, defining a safety standard solely in 
terms of whether the vehicle or motor vehicle equipment is intended for 
private or public use fails to meet the statutory meaning of 
objectivity unless the agency clearly defines private and public use in 
a manner that is readily applicable to lift manufacturers and vehicle 
manufacturers. We are, however, persuaded that a break-point of 3,200 
kg for MPVs will likely place unreasonable restrictions on many 
individuals who use their vehicle for purely personal transportation. 
Accordingly, we have raised the upper limit for MPVs that may use lifts 
that are not certified to all of the standard's requirements to 4,536 
kg GVWR. Not only is this one of the break-points NHTSA has 
traditionally used to differentiate between private and commercial 
vehicles, but we also believe this break-point will accommodate almost 
all MPVs purchased for personal use.
    As proposed in the SNPRM, the lesser requirements will also be 
applicable to those lifts designed for use on motor homes, trailers and 
tractor-trucks, since these vehicles are generally not used to 
transport the general public. The lifts that meet the lesser 
requirements shall be certified as DOT-private use compliant. Private 
use is defined in the standard as those lifts designed for installation 
on motor homes, trailers, truck tractors and MPVs with a GVWR less than 
4,536 kg, and that are certified as compliant with the lesser 
requirements. The certification label on these lifts shall bear the 
statement ``DOT-private use lift''.
    We note that the requirements of the ADA still apply to all lifts 
installed on vehicles used as public conveyances, either by public 
entities or by private entities that transport members of the general 
public, regardless of vehicle size. Thus, in many instances a lift 
manufacturer may choose to manufacture a lift that meets the stricter 
requirements, either because it does not wish to develop a separate 
lift design, or because the lift will be installed on a smaller MPV 
that is used for the transportation of the general public. Under 
today's rule, lifts designed for use on vehicles smaller than 4,536 kg 
be certified to the stricter requirements. Lifts designed for 
installation on all buses and on MPVs with a GVWR in excess of 4,536 kg 
must be certified to the stricter requirements and will be defined in 
the standard as public-use lifts. Likewise, those lifts that are 
certified as meeting the stricter requirements are defined as public-
use lifts, even if they may be installed on vehicles that are not buses 
or MPVs with a GVWR less than 4,536 kg. The certification label on 
these lifts shall bear the statement ``DOT-public use lift''.
    Throughout the rest of this document, the differences in 
requirements, both in the final rule and as discussed in the SNPRM, 
will be discussed in terms of private use lifts and public use lifts.

VII. Effective Dates

    We received ten comments on the proposed one-year effective date. 
Three of the commenters (Braun, MCI and Collins) believed a one-year 
effective date was sufficient, although Braun indicated that many of 
the proposed requirements--particularly the proposed interlocks--would 
require costly and complex product redesign which would require 
additional leadtime. Other commenters maintained that too many changes 
were required to be achieved in one year. These commenters suggested an 
effective date ranging from two to five years. The commenters were 
particularly concerned about the time needed to comply with the 
proposed interlock requirements.
    NMEDA commented that the requirements should only apply to lifts 
manufactured after the effective date and installed on new vehicles. In 
a similar vein, APTA was concerned that the proposed regulations did 
not address lifts installed on vehicles that had been purchased before 
the effective date.
    NJ Transit believed the effective date should exempt existing bus 
orders placed by mass transit authorities as such orders can carry over 
multiple years. It argued that changing lift equipment in the middle of 
a bus order could be confusing to customer, and could increase 
manufacturing and maintenance costs.
    Based on the comments, we have decided to adopt a two-year 
effective date. We believe this time frame will provide lift 
manufacturers sufficient time to meet any new requirements. As 
discussed in the SNPRM, most of the requirements adopted in today's 
rule are already part of an existing standard or guideline. 
Accordingly, lift manufacturers should not need a significant amount of 
time to ensure their lifts comply with the new FMVSS. As to NMEDA's and 
APTA's concern that the new standards not apply to lifts or vehicles 
manufactured before the effective date, we note that both FMVSS No. 403 
and FMVSS No. 404 have a two-year effective date. Thus, only lifts 
manufactured after the effective date need to be certified as compliant 
with FMVSS No. 403 and only vehicles manufactured after the effective 
date need to be certified as compliant with FMVSS No. 404. FMVSS No. 
404 will not apply to vehicles manufactured before the effective date 
even though those vehicles may have FMVSS No. 403 compliant lifts. 
However the use of a compliant lift, even on the older vehicles, should 
provide an added measure of safety.
    We are unable to provide a separate effective date for vehicles 
that are covered by multi-year purchase orders, as NJ Transit urges. 
Such a provision would be non-objective and impossible for us to 
enforce. However, we believe the two-year delay in the effective date 
will provide transit operators, such as NJ Transit, to make whatever 
contract modifications are necessary on existing purchase orders and to 
ensure that all future purchase orders specify the installation of 
compliant lifts.

VIII. Platform Lift Requirements

Threshold Warning Signal

    In the SNPRM we proposed to require a threshold warning alarm to 
alert vehicle occupants near an operating lift. For private use lifts, 
the alarm could be either audible or visual. Under the proposal, public 
use lifts 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 have needed to 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 \8\ 
were occupied by any portion of the lift occupant's body or any piece 
of equipment. This warning requirement

[[Page 79421]]

was based on an SAE recommended practice specifying 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The platform threshold area is defined in the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We stated in the SNPRM that we considered a warning alarm to be 
particularly important in transit and paratransit vehicles where more 
than one individual may use the lift sequentially. It would also be 
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), since we did not believe such systems posed the same type of 
risk to the lift occupant or bystanders. The proposed requirement would 
not have applied to rotary lifts where loading takes place entirely 
over the surface of the vehicle's floor. We sought comment on whether 
an audible or visual threshold warning should be required and whether 
the warning would avoid injuries to users caused by an out-of-position 
platform. We also sought comment on whether a minimum size or weight 
should be specified to trigger the warning (and, if so, what that size 
or weight should be).
    Additional concerns were raised about the effect a visual or 
audible alarm could have on individuals with certain medical conditions 
such as epilepsy. Accordingly, Ricon and Braun suggested that NHTSA 
allow a mechanical threshold barrier as an alternative to an audible or 
visual alarm. In response to our question as to whether a minimum 
weight should be specified to trigger the threshold alarm system, Braun 
and NMEDA argued that the warnings only be required to activate when 
the sensors detected a weight greater than 50 lb.
    The Oregon DOT supported requiring an audible threshold-warning 
signal. It maintained such a signal would not only protect lift 
occupants during sequential loading, but would also warn a driver or 
attendant when a passenger with impaired cognitive ability approached 
the lift door when the lift was fully deployed.
    Other commenters opposed the adoption of a threshold warning alarm, 
particularly for lifts used in a commercial environment. Prevost 
posited that a threshold-warning requirement should only be required in 
those instances where the lift occupant must operate the lift without 
assistance. Along with MCI, it maintained that the requirement should 
not apply to lifts installed on over-the-road buses since the drivers 
of these buses have been trained to load and offload disabled 
individuals from the bus, obviating the need for an alarm.
    Stewart & Stevenson stated that most vehicle manufacturers already 
have a visual or audible warning that is activated when the lift is 
activated. It stated that these warning systems are effective, even 
though they are not activated whenever an individual is within 18 
inches of the lift. It further averred that imposing such a requirement 
would increase the cost of lift design and compliance with no 
associated benefit. RICON, Braun, NMEDA and Prevost all stated that the 
proposed threshold area should be reduced to twelve inches, at least 
for non-commercial, non-transit vehicles. Braun noted that an eighteen-
inch threshold area could consume as much as 30 percent of the interior 
width of a standard-size van.
    MCI stated that while SAE J2090, Design Considerations for 
Wheelchair Lifts for Entry to or Exit from a Personally Licensed 
Vehicle, specified a threshold warning system, it is unaware of any 
manufacturer of personal use lifts who actually incorporates this 
feature into its lift design. It additionally claimed that it has never 
heard of an accident that would have been avoided if the lift had been 
equipped with a threshold-warning signal. Finally, MCI noted that often 
the wheelchair securement location is within the 18-inch area proposed 
in the NPRM and that requiring the alarm to go off whenever that area 
is occupied and the lift is in motion could draw undue attention to 
wheelchair occupants.
    Section 4.4.6 of the State of California Department of 
Rehabilitation's Specifications for Adaptive Driving Equipment has 
required threshold warning systems for lifts installed on private 
vehicles since 1985. It adopted this requirement after six clients of 
the state's Mobility Evaluation Program were killed after backing their 
wheelchair off a vehicle when they thought the platform was in place. 
Since instituting this requirement, no other falls have come to the 
attention of the Mobility Equipment Program. Currently Braun provides a 
platform warning alarm system as optional equipment to at least some of 
its lifts. We believe that the vehicle modifiers are placing the 
warning devices in vehicles equipped with lifts manufactured by other 
companies are meeting the California requirements by installing simple 
weight detection devices on the floor of the vehicle.
    Given the risk involved in backing off a vehicle when the lift is 
not properly positioned, we have decided to adopt the requirement for a 
threshold warning system as proposed in the SNPRM. Under today's rule, 
the threshold warning system must activate whenever the platform is 
more than 25 mm (1 in) below the vehicle floor reference plane. Several 
types of detection systems may be used to satisfy this requirement. In 
order to test for compliance with the requirement we have decided to 
place one front wheel of the wheelchair test device specified in the 
standard within the threshold area. This will place approximately 11.3 
kg (25 lb) on the threshold. This amount of weight roughly replicates 
the weight of the lightest portion of an average wheelchair or half the 
weight of a child who may be using the lift unattended. We have decided 
against specifying a particular minimum weight because wheelchairs will 
place slightly differing amounts of weight depending on design. We 
believe the threshold should reasonably detect the weight of any 
occupant in a mobility device and any bystander who is likely to be 
unattended. We note that the rough approximation of weight represented 
by placing one wheel of a mobility device in the threshold area should 
allow individuals to place light objects, such as books or handbags, 
within the area without triggering the alert.
    We are unconvinced that there is no need to require a threshold 
warning alert for over-the-road buses. Prevost and MCI may be correct 
that in general the lift operators on over-the-road buses have received 
specialized training in how to use the lift. However, we have no 
control over the level of training provided. Additionally, the lift 
operator may actually operate the lift from a position remote from the 
lift platform, such as the driver's seat. In such an instance, the 
operator would not be able to ensure that no other vehicle occupants 
were a safe distance from the lift throughout the range of lift 
operations.
    We believe the 18-inch threshold area requirement is important for 
safety, particularly for wheelchair users who back onto the lift 
platform from the vehicle floor. If the threshold is reduced to twelve 
inches, as suggested by commenters, the wheelchair may be so close to 
the edge of the vehicle floor that the occupant will be unable to react 
in time to prevent the wheelchair from continuing the wheelchair's 
movement off the edge of the vehicle floor. The standard only requires 
the alert be activated when the lift is deployed, the threshold is 
occupied, and the lift platform is more than one inch below the level 
of the vehicle floor. In private vehicles the alert would only be 
activated when the lift is deployed and

[[Page 79422]]

a vehicle occupant is either in the threshold area or simultaneously on 
the threshold and the platform after the lift had started moving. The 
same is true for transit and paratransit buses, except the alert could 
also activate while the lift was being used properly and another 
occupant was in the threshold area. While the commenters may be correct 
that the alert will notify all vehicle occupants that the lift is being 
operated, we do not believe the alert is any more likely to draw 
attention to a lift user than the operation of the lift itself.
    Today's requirement specifies that the audible alert be at least 85 
dBA and the visual alert have a frequency of 1 to 2 Hz. We believe 
these specifications are unlikely to lead to seizures in or cause other 
medical or physical impairments to vehicle or lift occupants. The 85-
dBA level of the audible alarm is a frequently used level for 
enunciators. An individual can be exposed to this sound level for the 
length of time the alarm will operate without sustaining hearing loss 
or other negative repercussions. The low frequency flash of the visual 
alert (1 to 2 Hz) is in line with the frequency of warning flashers 
commonly used in automotive and highway applications. The flash 
frequency is also in line with our existing requirements in FMVSS No. 
108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, which 
incorporates by reference SAE recommended practice J590B, Turn Signal 
Flashers, for the visual flash rate of hazard warnings. SAE J590B 
stipulates a rate of 60 to 120 flashes per minute, which translates to 
a frequency of 1 to 2 Hz. We are unaware of any seizures related to the 
use of hazard devices required under FMVSS No. 108.
    We believe lift systems that use a mechanical barrier to prevent a 
vehicle occupant from falling off the edge of the vehicle are used only 
rarely, if at all. Certainly such devices are not addressed by existing 
recommended practices or guidelines. In any case, we have decided 
against allowing such a barrier as an alternative to the threshold 
warning alert, as we have some concerns about the safety of such a 
device. Such a barrier could retain powered wheelchairs, but they would 
also create a tripping hazard for persons using canes and walkers. 
Additionally, mechanical barriers could impinge on an occupant's 
ability to exit the vehicle during an emergency situation. If warning 
systems other than those related to a threshold warning alert are 
developed, NHTSA could change the standard to allow such systems.

B. Platform Lift Operational Requirements

1. Maximum Platform Velocity
    We proposed maximum platform operating speeds for the safety of 
lift users, especially standees (e.g., individuals who use a cane or 
walker). The SNPRM specified a maximum vertical and horizontal velocity 
of the platform of 152 mm/s (6 in/s) in order 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[chyph]mm/s (6 in/s).
    Based on our review of the ADA standard, we also 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 was to reduce the potential injuries to 
bystanders and lift users. We requested comment on safety need for 
velocity limits while platform is stowing and deploying and whether any 
commenters knew of any instances where someone was injured because the 
lift was stowing or deploying too quickly.
    We received comments both supporting and opposing the adoption of a 
maximum operating velocity during the stowage and deployment portion of 
lift operation. Collins noted that while it no longer manufacturers 
platform lifts, it knew of very few accidents that resulted from 
excessive folding speed when it was manufacturing lifts. Braun also 
knew of no incidents related to excessive stowage or deployment speed. 
It stated, however, that 305 mm/sec (12 in/sec) appeared a reasonable 
speed to prevent injuries. Braun also requested the agency specify 
where on the lift to measure a maximum radial velocity during the 
stowage and deployment operations, suggesting a point 610 mm (24 in) 
from the platform pivot.
    We have decided to adopt a requirement limiting the maximum 
velocity of platform lifts throughout the lift's range of operation. We 
are not persuaded that specifying a maximum platform velocity, both 
throughout the range of passenger operations and the stowage and 
deployment operations, imposes an unreasonable burden on the lift 
manufacturer. Today's requirement is based on existing requirements, 
which may explain why commenters are unaware of any accidents related 
to excessive platform velocity. However, the fundamental risk of injury 
from a lift that is moving too quickly remains unless there is a 
requirement that limits the lift's operating velocity.
    We agree that it is appropriate to specify where on the lift the 
agency will measure maximum velocity during the range of operation. The 
regulatory text has been changed accordingly. Additionally, we 
recognize that some lifts use a hinged platform lift that pivots down 
when deployed and up when stowed. On these lifts the highest platform 
velocity occurs at the outer edge of the platform. In order to clarify 
that the maximum velocity of these lifts are covered by the standard, 
we have changed the regulatory text to specify that during the stowage 
and deployment portions of lift operation no portion of the lift shall 
exceed 305 mm (12 in/sec). Otherwise the requirements for maximum 
operating velocity have been adopted as proposed in the SNPRM.
2. Maximum Platform Acceleration
    We decided to propose in the SNPRM an acceleration limit of 0.3 g 
with the platform both loaded and unloaded. The acceleration would be 
measured along axes horizontal and perpendicular to the lift platform. 
The no load condition was 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 intended 
to ensure that acceleration remains within the desired limits. While 
the proposed test procedure was based on the one specified in SAE 
recommended practice J211, Instrumentation for Impact Test, we proposed 
to depart from that test procedure by measuring acceleration with a CFC 
3 filter rather than a CFC 60 filter. We believed the CFC 3 filter 
better represents a wheelchair's dampening characteristic. Since no one 
objected to this portion of the proposal, we have adopted it as 
proposed.
3. Maximum Noise Level of Public Use Lifts
    We proposed a maximum permissible noise level of 80 dBA in the 
SNPRM. This level represents the maximum permissible volume of ambient 
noise allowing for normal communication between two people who are 
three feet away from each other and exceeds the level of ambient noise 
at a city bus stop.\9\ We sought comment on whether commenters knew of 
any injuries directly attributable to lift occupant and lift operator 
being unable to communicate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See An Evaluation of the Proposed Wheelchair Lift Safety 
Test Procedure, (June, 1996) located at docket No. NHTSA-98-4511-4.

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

[[Page 79423]]

    Braun, NMEDA, and Ricon all requested the agency provide a specific 
distance for measuring lift noise levels. They indicated that 
measurement point of ``lift operator's position'' was too vague since 
the use of a pendant control could allow the lift operator to be 
several feet away from the lift. Ricon suggested we adopt a measuring 
point located 55 inches above the platform while the lift is in use. 
Collins indicated that it knew of no instances in which a lift occupant 
or bystander was injured because the driver could not hear the 
passengers. It was, however, aware of instances in which the driver had 
ignored a passenger during lift operations. The Oregon DOT asked 
whether NHTSA had taken account of the accumulative effect of 
additional noise on people with impaired hearing when determining the 
maximum amount of allowable lift noise. VanHool asked whether the noise 
level was measured while the vehicle engine was running and whether the 
maximum noise level was inconsistent with the requirement that the 
audible alarm produce at least 85 dBA.
    We are adopting the requirement as proposed in the SNPRM with 
slight modification. The purpose of today's requirement is to ensure 
the lift user and lift operator will be able to communicate. Since lift 
operators for private use lifts are likely to be the lift user, we 
believe there is no need to specify a maximum level of noise that the 
lift may produce. Accordingly, today's requirement only applies to 
those lifts certified as public-use lifts.
    The commenters are correct that the proposed measuring point of the 
``lift operator's position'' was insufficiently objective in the SNPRM 
to measure maximum noise levels. They are also correct that this 
uncertainty is exacerbated in systems that use a pendant control, since 
the location of that control varies based on where the lift operator is 
standing. Accordingly, we have changed the requirement to state that 
the maximum noise level will be measured for each operator position 
specified by the lift manufacturer in the installation instructions. 
Measurements are taken at the vertical centerline of the face of the 
control panel 30.5 cm (12 in) out from the face of the control panel. 
If the lift system uses a pendant control, the vertical measurement 
point will be at the same location discussed above, but with the 
control panel in its stowed or stored position, since this places the 
control at the point closest to the noise source. For controls located 
outside of the vehicle, the horizontal measurement is 157 cm (62 in) 
above the ground, which is roughly the same distance from the ground as 
an adult's ears, while the vertical measurement remains 30.5 cm (12 in) 
from the face of the control panel.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See US/DOT/FAA Human Factors Design Guide, January 1996, 
NHTSA-02-13917.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We did not make any adjustments based on the accumulated effect of 
noise on individuals with impaired hearing since the lift would only be 
in use for a short period of time. Additionally, we note that the 
required 85-dBA audible threshold warning alert exceeds the maximum 
allowable amount of noise for lift operations. This is intentional. As 
noted earlier, the audible alert will only sound during lift operations 
if the threshold area is occupied. Thus, it generally would not be 
constant throughout the range of lift operations. Additionally, the 
audible alert should be sufficiently greater than the maximum level 
allowed for normal lift operations to make it distinguishable.

C. Environmental Resistance

    In the SNPRM, we tentatively proposed adopting the SAE requirements 
for externally mounted lifts. Additionally, we proposed all attachment 
hardware, regardless of location inside or outside the vehicle, meet 
the hardware requirements of FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, which 
permits compliance either by passing a salt spray test or by 
electroplating the components. We sought comment on whether the 
proposed environmental resistance requirements should be incorporated 
into the standard.
    While the majority of those commenting on this issue supported 
adding an environmental resistance requirement to the standard, Lift-U 
maintained that the requirement for electroplating with nickel or a 
nickel copper alloy was too restrictive. Lift-U also suggested that all 
lifts, regardless of storage location, meet the SAE requirements for 
environmental resistance.
    Given the strong support among most commenters for an environmental 
resistance requirement, we are adopting the requirement as proposed in 
the SNPRM. Both the requirement and test procedure for external 
components are based on the SAE recommended practice. All attachment 
hardware, regardless of location, must meet the requirement for 
attachment hardware specified in FMVSS No. 209. That standard provides 
for two alternative means of compliance: either by passing the salt 
spray test or by electroplating with a nickel or nickel/copper coating. 
We are not extending the SAE-based requirement to hardware located 
within the occupant compartment of the vehicle because that hardware 
will not be subjected to environmental conditions any more severe than 
the hardware regulated by FMVSS No. 209.

D. Platform Requirements

1. Unobstructed Platform Operating Volume
    In the SNPRM, we proposed 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 to 
30 in) above the platform surface, and a minimum clear length of 122 cm 
(48 in) above the surface of the platform. No part of the lift or 
vehicle (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. No 
minimum volume was specified for private use lifts, although the 
vehicle owner's manual insert would have had to specify the 
unobstructed platform operating volume. We sought comment on whether 
the suggested approach for private use lifts was appropriate.
    The majority of the commenters agreed that it was appropriate to 
allow lift manufacturers to provide an unobstructed operating volume 
for private use lifts that was different than that proposed for public 
use lifts as long as the lift manufacturer disclosed what the 
unobstructed operating volume was. Collins stated that it could not see 
any justification for allowing a different size for private use lifts 
since the lift occupants are the same as those occupants using a 
commercial lift. APTA and the Michigan DOT averred the width of the 
upper segment of the unobstructed operating volume for commercial lifts 
should be increased to 813 mm (32 in) to accommodate scooters.
    While Collins is correct that there is no difference in the size of 
occupants who use personal lifts and occupants who use public lifts, we 
believe there is a significant difference in lift usage. Personal lifts 
are generally only used by a single occupant. We expect that occupant 
will purchase a lift that is suitable for his or her needs. An 
individual with a large wheelchair or scooter will purchase a lift that 
accommodates a larger mobility device. An individual with a smaller 
mobility aid will have no need of a larger lift and may be able to 
increase his or her vehicle choice by purchasing a lift with a smaller 
size capacity. In either

[[Page 79424]]

instance, the individual using the lift has an input as to which lift 
to purchase. This is why we believe there is no need to specify a 
minimum operating volume for personal use lifts as long as the lift 
manufacturer notifies the lift user of the maximum operating volume.
    However, public use lifts are designed to accommodate the needs of 
several individuals. The transit operator has no way of knowing whether 
a smaller lift would accommodate the users of the lift. Indeed, it must 
assume that there will be instances where a larger lift is required to 
accommodate a particular lift occupant. In these vehicles the question 
of user choice has been removed. If the transit operators do not 
purchase sufficiently large lifts, some potential users will be 
deprived of the opportunity to use the lift.
    We recognize the concerns of APTA and the Michigan DOT that the 
minimum operating volume may be too small to accommodate all mobility 
devices currently on the market. We too have some concerns that lifts 
designed to only meet the minimum operating volume may preclude some 
users from using a public use lift. However, today's requirement is 
based on existing requirements and the existing design of most lifts. 
If we were to specify a larger minimum operating volume, we believe a 
significant number of lifts would have to be redesigned before they 
could be certified as compliant. We note that nothing in today's rule 
prevents lift purchasers from procuring lifts with a platform operating 
volume that is greater than what is required in the standard. We would 
also expect scooter manufacturers to design their devices in a manner 
that allows the user to have access to public transportation.
2. Platform Surface Protrusions
    For public use lifts, the SNPRM proposed the upper surface of the 
platform be free from protrusions greater than 6.5 mm (0.25 in) high, 
and proposed a test procedure for measuring the height of such 
protrusions. Private use lifts would be allowed to have protrusions up 
to 13 mm (0.5 in). The proposed limit for private use lifts was less 
than that required under ADAAG regulations; however, we believed the 
ADAAG regulations were overly stringent for the private use lifts 
(which are not subject to ADAAG regulations in any case). For these 
lifts, 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 received no comments regarding surface protrusions. We continue 
to believe that allowing protrusions to be between 6.5 mm and 13 mm 
(0.25-0.5 in) for personal use lifts 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. Accordingly, we are adopting the surface protrusion 
requirements as proposed in the SNPRM of no more than 6.5 mm on public 
use lifts and no more than 13 mm on private use lifts.
3. Gaps, Transitions, and Openings
    As discussed in the SNPRM, we proposed the openings in the upper 
surface of the platform be no greater than 19 mm (0.75 in). No vertical 
surface transition could be more than 6.5 mm (0.25 in) at either the 
ground or vehicle level and 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 
proposed allowable slope on the portion of the rise between 6.5 mm and 
13 mm (0.25 and 0.5 in) above the ground, platform surface, or vehicle 
surface would be limited to a 1:2 ratio and a 1:8 ratio would be 
allowed for the portion of the ramp above 13 mm (0.5 in). Gaps between 
the upper surface of the platform and either the outer barriers or the 
inner roll stops would be limited to no more than 16 mm (0.625 in) when 
fully deployed. Gaps would be tested with a 16 x 16 x 102 mm (0.625 x 
0.625 x 4.0 in) test block that could not pass through any gaps. Gaps 
between the lift and edge guards permanently affixed to the ramp could 
not exceed 13 mm (0.5 in) throughout the range of lift operation. Edge 
guards that are an integral part of the vehicle could not be more than 
6.5 mm (0.25 in) from the platform throughout lift operation.
    Lift-U suggested that we limit the restrictions on maximum gap size 
to the usable platform surface, instead of the entire platform surface, 
as there may be gaps that are greater than the proposed 19 mm (0.75 in) 
behind linkages. Since the mobility device or lift passenger does not 
have access to these portions of the lift, Lift-U argued that there was 
no need for a maximum size limitation. No other comments were submitted 
regarding the proposed requirement.
    We believe Lift-U's point is well taken. We are only concerned with 
the area of the platform that coincides with the portion of the 
platform that may be occupied. Accordingly, we have changed the wording 
regarding gaps, transitions and openings to indicate that the 
applicable platform area for this requirement is the area of the 
platform that coincides with the unobstructed platform operating 
volume.
4. Platform Deflection
    We proposed 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. We also 
proposed platform deflection be tested with a platform load 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 Department of Veterans Administration 
procurement standard that a specified deflection limit may not be 
exceeded either before or after loading. The proposed 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)). Testing throughout 
the lift cycle is also consistent with the FTA requirement that lifts 
must meet the deflection limit during the entire lift cycle. We 
requested comment on whether platform deflection should be included in 
vehicle standard as well as lift standard, limiting the effect of 
vehicle suspension on lift deflection.
    The majority of commenters on this issue indicated that platform 
deflection relative to the ground is very difficult to measure since 
the amount of deflection is vehicle-dependent. Collins indicated that 
heavier lifts will deflect less than those designed for personal use. 
ATC stated that it had actually measured the level of deflection at 
ground level on two different buses with the lift loaded with 600 lb of 
ballast and found the difference in deflection to be minimal. Lift-U 
noted that some of their lifts are designed to deflect more than one 
degree to accommodate less-than-ideal road conditions. By design, these 
lift platforms angle two degrees toward the vehicle centerline when the 
lift is at the vehicle floor and two degrees away from the vehicle 
centerline when at ground level.
    Lift-U noted that with over 100,000 of these lifts in use, they 
have an excellent safety record. Accordingly, Lift-U suggested NHTSA 
adopt a maximum unloaded deflection angle of 1.8 degrees with respect 
to the vehicle floor with a maximum loaded angle of an additional three 
degrees with respect to the unloaded position. In both instances, it 
urged that we not allow a total slope that exceeds a 1:12 ratio. Lift-U 
maintained that this approach would allow design flexibility and would 
be

[[Page 79425]]

consistent with the ADA requirement for general access to buildings. 
Prevost noted that the suspension on its vehicles provide a roll angle 
of one to two degrees when the lift is deployed and loaded.
    Because vehicle suspension appears to play only a nominal role in 
the amount of overall deflection, we have decided to measure platform 
deflection only as it relates to the vehicle floor. This is what we had 
proposed in the SNPRM. However, we have made changes to the proposal 
based on Lift-U's comments. We believe the FTA standard described by 
Lift-U will adequately protect against excessive deflection. Under the 
FTA specification, a lift could deflect no more than 4.8 degrees, even 
when fully loaded. Allowing a maximum deflection of 4.8 degrees, with 
no more than 1.8 degrees deflection of an unloaded lift (as measured 
from the vehicle floor reference plane) is consistent with the FTA 
specification and slightly more stringent than the SAE recommended 
practice, which specifies a total maximum loaded deflection of 3.6 
degrees as compared to its preloaded position. Adopting this slightly 
more lenient level will obviate the need to make costly changes to 
existing lift systems.
5. Edge Guards
    In the SNPRM we proposed requiring edge guards that were at least 
38 mm (1.5 in) high and sought comment on whether any existing passive 
lifts have edge guards that extend beyond the lowest step riser when 
the lift is functioning as vehicle steps and whether such a design 
creates a tripping hazard. We proposed the 38 mm (1.5 in) height 
because we believed it 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)).
    We requested 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, and whether such edge 
guards create a tripping hazard when the lift is stowed.
    Collins stated that it knew of no passive lifts where the edge 
guard extended below the lowest riser of the steps. Lift-U stated that 
edge guards on passive lifts should only be required for those portions 
of the lift that are outside of the vehicle and that any handrails be 
considered part of the edge guard. It also argued, as did APTA, that 
the guards should not be required within three inches of the outer edge 
of the lift. In the same vein, Braun and NMEDA stated that, for 
personal use lifts, edge guards should not be required on thirty 
percent of the platform on one side. The basis for both suggestions was 
that lifts are commonly designed without a continuous edge guard to 
facilitate the loading and unloading of the lift passenger when space 
is limited. Braun and NMEDA also alternatively argued for a reduction 
in minimum height from the proposed 1.5 inches to 0.75 inches.
    The edge guard specifications in today's rule have been amended in 
response to comments. The practice of ending edge guards short of the 
outer edge of the platform and reducing the length of the edge guards 
on one side of the platform allows a lift occupant to turn his or her 
mobility device when space directly in front of the platform is 
limited. Accordingly, we have decided to require edge guards be present 
and continuous along the sides of the platform to within 3 inches from 
the outer platform edge. In many cases this will be less than the 30% 
reduction common on many lifts. However, we are concerned that allowing 
up to a 30% reduction in coverage along the side of the platform could 
compromise wheelchair retention on the lift platform. This is precisely 
the type of situation we wish to avoid. Some present lift designs offer 
lifts where a significant portion of the edge guard stows when the lift 
is at ground level. Other designs feature stowable edge guards that 
incorporate at least 30% of the entire edge guard. Such systems are 
permissible under today's rule as long as the edge guard is fully 
deployed by the time the lift is more than 3 inches above the ground. 
We believe this will allow those types of lift designs where additional 
turning space is desirable without compromising the safety of the lift 
occupant.
    Handrails would also be allowed to operate as an edge guard as long 
as the handrail provides a continuous surface along and adjacent to the 
side of the platform parallel to the direction of wheelchair movement 
during loading and unloading. Likewise, as noted in the SNPRM, the 
interior structure of the stairwell in an over-the-road bus may serve 
as an edge guard for those lifts. However, we note that the restriction 
on gaps, transitions and openings discussed above would apply to these 
surfaces.
    We have decided against reducing the minimum height requirement for 
edge guards on private use lifts. We do not believe a minimum height of 
one and one-half inches is excessive. Both the FTA and SAE guidelines 
specify a minimum height of 1.5 inches, and we are unaware of any 
problems associated with meeting these guidelines. Additionally, 
commenters failed to provide any rationale as to why a shorter edge 
guard was needed or how it would adequately protect a lift user.
6. Wheelchair Retention
    In the SNPRM, we proposed that lifts be equipped with a wheelchair 
retention device that can keep a wheelchair upright throughout the 
range of lift operation and can sustain a direct force of 7,117 N 
(1,600 lb). We proposed testing the device both dynamically (impact 
tests) and statically (overload test) since the two tests replicate 
different conditions. The dynamic impact test was designed to ensure 
that the wheelchair could not climb a barrier, while the static test 
measures a restraining device's structural integrity. We proposed 
running the dynamic impact test by impacting an empty wheelchair into 
the barrier when the platform is level with the ground. We would run 
the proposed static test by applying a load against the retention 
device and then examining it for separation, fracture or breakage. We 
proposed a separate dynamic test for rotary lifts whereby both barriers 
are impacted at a point in lift operation between the ground and 
vehicle floor.
    Lift-U and APTA stated that the SNPRM did not clearly indicate 
whether the wheels of the wheelchair had to remain on the lift platform 
during the entire test sequence for both tests, or whether they only 
had to be in contact with the platform at the end of the test. Trolley 
& Transport suggested that the wheelchair retention device be at least 
as high as the average armrest, approximately 635-762 mm (25-30 in), in 
order to prevent a wheelchair occupant from being tipped out of the 
wheelchair and off the platform. It also recommended that the dynamic 
test be conducted using the 95th percentile adult male test dummy and 
5th percentile adult female test dummy to assure that a wheelchair 
occupant would not be thrown off the lift even though the wheels of the 
mobility aid remained on the platform.
    Lift-U also indicated that allowing the wheelchair retention test 
to be performed in one direction when a single loading direction is 
specified in the owner's manual is contrary to the requirements of the 
ADA. Braun commented that the compliance tests for the wheelchair 
retention device should be conducted using the ISO/SAE surrogate 
wheelchair. NMEDA also advocated that, for personal use lifts, the

[[Page 79426]]

outer barrier be required to be fully in position before the lift can 
be raised or lowered. It stated that this requirement is particularly 
important for personal use lifts because those systems almost never 
have a wheelchair securement device to keep the wheelchair on the lift 
in the absence of an outer barrier. Ricon believed we should mandate 
the use of an occupant restraint system for the lift as is currently 
specified in the Canadian Standards Association D-409.
    APTA doubted whether any existing lifts, particularly those 
installed on paratransit vehicles, have retention devices that could 
withstand the application of 7,117 N (1,600 lbf) without significant 
redesign. Braun also believes, as does NMEDA, that the static 7,117 N 
(1,600 lbf) overload test is sufficient for personal use lifts and that 
no dynamic test is needed. It argues that the dynamic test will require 
systems, such as belts or taller outboard roll stops, which are 
cumbersome and generally incompatible with the smaller, personal use 
lifts.
    We have decided to adopt the wheelchair retention device 
requirement as proposed in the SNPRM. We note that in many instances 
the retention device will simply be the lift's outer barrier, and, if 
applicable, the inner roll stop discussed after this section. The test 
device need not maintain full contact with the lift platform throughout 
the wheelchair retention dynamic test. It must remain upright at the 
conclusion of the test.
    We have decided against testing the retention device with a 5th 
percentile adult female test dummy or a 95th percentile adult male test 
dummy. When developing the wheelchair retention test, we ran the test 
with the wheelchairs empty and loaded with 102 kg (225 lb) of ballast. 
The empty wheelchairs were the most likely to climb the barrier. 
Transport & Trolley is correct that a loaded wheelchair is more likely 
to tip over the outer barrier; however, we believe the requirement that 
the wheelchair remain upright at the conclusion of the test should 
require designs that are unlikely to tip an occupant out of the 
wheelchair. The only way to guarantee that a wheelchair does not tip 
over the outer barrier is to require the type of high barrier advocated 
by Trolley & Transport or to require an occupant restraint system. We 
are not mandating the use of an occupant restraint system, as specified 
in the Canadian Standards Association D-409, because we believe such a 
requirement is unduly design restrictive. Likewise, we have decided 
against adopting the suggestion that the retention device be as high as 
a handrail. We are not persuaded that such restrictions on design are 
warranted. Rather, we believe any device that can meet the applicable 
static and dynamic tests used to test for compliance will be amply 
safe. We note that while we are not imposing a requirement that the 
outer barrier be fully positioned before a lift can be raised or 
lowered, rather, we are adopting a requirement that the wheelchair 
retention device must be fully deployed whenever the lift platform is 
more than 75 mm (3 in) from the ground.
    We note that the ADA does not apply to private use lifts. 
Accordingly, allowing private use lifts without an inner roll stop if 
the lift manufacturer specifies that rearward loading is required is 
not inconsistent with the requirements of the ADA.
    We have decided against using the ISO surrogate wheelchair because 
that wheelchair is not powered. Our test procedure requires the 
technician to maintain power until all wheelchair motion other than the 
drive wheels has ceased. This requirement is included in the test 
procedure to determine whether a powered wheelchair is capable of 
climbing the barrier. Accordingly, it is imperative that we specify a 
testing device that is power driven.
    We do not know why APTA believes none of the lifts currently 
installed on its' members buses could not meet the 7,117 N (1,600 lbf) 
static overload test. This test is based on the existing FTA 
guidelines, which should apply to many of APTA's members. Additionally, 
no lift manufacturer objected to the force levels proposed in the 
SNPRM. Absent any evidence that the proposed force level is excessive, 
we have decided to adopt the static overload test as proposed in the 
SNPRM.
7. Inner Roll Stop
    We proposed in the SNPRM requiring an inner roll stop to prevent a 
wheelchair from rolling off the platform's inner edge. For arc lifts, 
i.e., lifts that 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 that 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. Accordingly, we proposed a two-part 
requirement for inner roll stops to ensure that the inner roll stop has 
adequate strength and will be sufficient to prevent pinching of an 
occupant's feet throughout the range of operations. Tests would be 
conducted by preventing the wheels of a wheelchair from passing over 
the inboard edge of the platform when at ground level and by attempting 
to move the wheelchair toward the roll stop as the lift is operated. We 
proposed not requiring an inner roll stop on private use lifts as long 
as the owner's manual specified that rearward loading was required. We 
requested information whether pinching was possible in rearward-loading 
lifts.
    Braun commented that the compliance tests for the inner roll stop 
should be conducted using the ISO/SAE surrogate wheelchair. Braun also 
noted that it was highly unlikely an occupant on a personal lift would 
be subjected to a pinching risk when using the lift as instructed and 
in a lift-compatible wheelchair. Lift-U indicated that allowing the 
inner roll stop test to be performed in one direction when a single 
loading direction is specified in the owner's manual is contrary to the 
requirements of the ADA.
    We are adopting the inner roll stop requirements as proposed in the 
SNPRM. We agree with Braun that there is little risk of pinching on a 
private use lift when that lift is used as directed. However, we 
believe such a lift would necessitate rearward or sideways loading in 
order to eliminate the risk of pinching in the absence of an inner roll 
stop. As noted in the previous section, the ADA does not apply to 
private use lifts. Accordingly, we do not believe the requirements we 
have adopted for those lifts are inconsistent with that law. Finally, 
we have decided against using the ISO surrogate wheelchair for the same 
reasons provided in our discussion of the wheelchair retention device.
8. Handrails
    In the SNPRM, we proposed 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 believed that 
it is more appropriate to test at two force levels than at a single 
force level of 445 N (100 lbs). The purpose of the 445 N (100 lbs) 
force application is to assure that the handrail is stable and has 
adequate clearance around it. The 1,112 N (250 lbs) force application's 
purpose is to assure that the handrail is sufficiently strong to 
prevent catastrophic failure.
    We received only one comment on the proposed handrail requirement. 
The Oregon DOT objected to a standard that would allow the handrail to 
bend as that

[[Page 79427]]

condition could inhibit the proper operation of the lift. It also noted 
that if there were extensive movement or rapid distortion of the 
handrail, even if the handrail did not break, the effect on the lift 
user could be the same.
    The majority of current handrail designs will bend or deflect to 
some degree. Requiring handrails that do not bend or deflect at all 
would be costly and would add additional weight to the lift. Handrail 
deflection is a by-product of the handrail design and material 
components. We believe the two handrail tests will ensure that both the 
design and composition of the handrails will be safe without regulating 
current designs out of existence.
9. Platform Markings on Public Use Lifts
    In the SNPRM we tentatively concluded that it is appropriate to 
require public use lifts be equipped with platform markings so as 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).
    We received no comments on this portion of the proposal. 
Accordingly, we have adopted the requirement for platform markings as 
proposed. It only applies to public use lifts. As with the other 
requirements applicable to lifts suitable for public use, a 
manufacturer of a lift that is appropriate for installation on an MPV 
under 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) GVWR may certify compliance with this 
portion of the standard if it intends to market the lifts as 
appropriate for use by multiple lift users.
10. Platform Lighting on Public Use Lifts
    NHTSA also tentatively concluded in the SNPRM that it is 
appropriate to require public use lifts be equipped with lighting. We 
were concerned that without such lighting, a lift user could be injured 
in poor light conditions. We also believed that the lighting from the 
vehicle's interior would probably be insufficient to illuminate the 
lift. Under the proposed standard, based on the FTA guidelines, the 
vehicle would need lighting sufficient to provide at least 54 lumens 
per square meter (5 lm/ft2) of luminance on all portions of 
the lift platform throughout the range of passenger 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 luminance. The 
agency noted that the current industry standard for lifts in 
personally-licensed vehicles (SAE J2093) does not require lighting. 
Moreover, users of personally-licensed vehicles are typically familiar 
with the use of their lifts and in many cases the user is the operator. 
Accordingly, we did not propose any lighting requirements for private 
use lifts. We maintained that these individuals could have lighting 
installed if they believe it is necessary.
    Braun and NMEDA, the only parties to comment on this issue, both 
supported the proposed lighting requirements, although they stated that 
the lights need not be mounted directly on the lift and may provide 
better illumination if installed directly on the vehicle.
    We have adopted the lighting requirement as proposed in the SNPRM. 
Today's rule merely requires the platform of public use lifts be 
illuminated throughout the range of passenger operation. It does not 
indicate that the light source must be mounted on the lift. Lighting 
may be mounted to the vehicle if, along with the lift, the lift 
manufacturer provides all hardware and detailed installation 
instructions necessary to install the lighting in a manner that 
complies with the requirements of the standard. Likewise, the lift 
manufacturer could specify that the lift was compatible with the 
lighting package of a particular make/model/year vehicle and provide 
installation instructions for that vehicle. In either case, compliance 
with the standard rests with the lift manufacturer, although FMVSS No. 
404 will place the burden of compliance with the installation 
instructions on the vehicle manufacturer.
11. 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 proposed in the SNPRM that the lift platform surfaces 
have a static coefficient of friction of at least 0.65 when tested, 
while wet, in any direction.
    The proposed test procedure for testing slip resistance was based 
on the ANSI/RESNA WC-13 test procedure.\11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Evaluation of ANSI/RESNA WC/13 to Determine the Coefficient 
of Friction of wheelchair Lift Platforms, (July, 1996), Docket No. 
NHTSA-4511.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Only one commenter, R.C.A. Rubber Co. commented on the proposed 
platform slip resistance requirement. It stated that the proposed test 
procedure would not be repeatable. The commenter also acknowledged that 
all known methods of testing for the wet coefficient of friction for 
wet surfaces were also non-repeatable and did not offer a better method 
of testing slip resistance. Rather, it suggested the proposed test 
method not be adopted as part of the standard.
    We disagree that the method of testing for the coefficient of 
friction is not repeatable and are adopting the requirement as 
proposed. ANSI/RESNA Standard WC13-1998 accepts the coefficient of 
friction test proposed in the SNPRM. Based on testing that NHTSA 
conducted, we made slight modifications to the ANSI/RESNA test 
procedure to maximize test repeatablity. We will consider changing the 
standard in the future if data indicates that a more repeatable test 
procedure is available.

E. Structural Integrity

1. Fatigue Endurance
    We also proposed two, separate requirements to test for fatigue 
endurance. The first one was the current SAE recommended practice, 
which requires the lift to operate through 8,800 cycles; one half of 
the cycles would be conducted with the lift loaded with 272 kg (600 lb) 
and one half of the cycles would be conducted with the lift empty 
(including the stow and deploy operations). The second requirement, 
which would have applied only to lifts built for public use, would 
require the lift system to be cycled a total of 31,200 times with one 
half of the cycles conducted with an empty lift (including the stow and 
deploy operations) and one half the cycles conducted with a lift loaded 
to 272 kg (600 lb). We sought comment on whether fatigue endurance 
should be included as a requirement in the standard.
    All commenters offering an opinion on the appropriateness of this 
requirement supported some type of a fatigue endurance requirement 
other than Collins, which indicated that the proposed requirement 
seemed to be a design requirement rather than a performance 
requirement. However, none of the commenters supported the requirements 
proposed in the SNPRM.

[[Page 79428]]

Stewart & Stevenson supported the adoption of the fatigue endurance 
requirements set forth in California Title 13. Braun and Ricon 
suggested the tests be conducted using the lift rated load rather than 
a 272 kg (600 lb) load. Lift-U noted that there appeared to be a 
discrepancy between the number of cycles discussed in the preamble and 
the number of cycles required by the proposed regulatory text. Lift-U 
also averred that the test be conducted on a test jig rather than on a 
vehicle because the length of the test is heavily dependent on the cool 
down period of the lift's intermittent duty power pack.
    We are adopting a fatigue endurance requirement for public use 
lifts that requires a total of 15,600 cycles of operation, with 50% of 
the cycles in the loaded condition and 50% of the cycles of operation 
in the unloaded conditions, which includes stow/deploy operations 
conducted at the same time as the unloaded operations. The requirement 
for private use lifts is 4,400 operations cycles, with 50% of the 
cycles in the loaded condition and 50% of the cycles in the unloaded 
position (including the stow/deploy operations). These are one half the 
number of cycles set forth in the regulatory text of the SNPRM. While 
we acknowledge that none of the commenters were particularly happy with 
the requirement as proposed, we also note that there was no general 
consensus on a better approach. Given the general support of some type 
of requirement, as well as the need for lifts to remain fully operable 
over a long period of time, we determined it was better to proceed with 
the proposed requirement, as modified, than to drop the requirement 
altogether.
    Various existing standards and procurement guidelines use different 
combinations of cycles and loads, all of which have both strengths and 
weaknesses. We have adopted the most meaningful aspects from the 
various guidelines by adopting the number of fatigue cycles required by 
both the FTA and California Title 13 and the test methodology 
recommended by SAE. California Title 13 and the FTA requirements are 
the same and both apply to public use lifts. They require 600 up/down 
operations with a load of 272 kg (600 lb) and 15,000 up/down operations 
with a load of 181 kg (400 lb). Additionally, they require another 
10,000 stow/deploy operations. The SAE recommended practice, which 
applies to private use lifts, requires a total of 4,400 up/down cycles, 
with one-half of the cycles in a loaded conditions and one-half the 
cycles in an unloaded condition. We believe that the SAE methodology 
better imitates real world conditions than the FTA/California Title 13 
in that it requires the lift be deployed and lowered to the ground 
level loading position, loaded, raised to the vehicle floor loading 
position, unloaded and stowed. The FTA/California 13 requirements do 
not contemplate any lift operations, other than stowage and deployment, 
of an unoccupied lift.
    While we have adopted the same number of cycles for public use 
lifts as required by the FTA/California 13 standards, we are requiring 
that all loaded operations be conducted with a 272 kg (600 lb) load. 
Because we are reducing the number of occupied lift operations by 50%, 
we believe requiring all such operations at the higher weight level is 
justified. For private use lifts, the number of loaded and unloaded 
cycles mimics the SAE recommended practice.
    We do not believe the fatigue endurance requirement amounts to a 
design requirement. Rather, it tests for the performance of the lift 
over multiple operations. This approach is consistent with the fatigue 
requirements of other safety standards like FMVSS No. 106, Brake hoses. 
Since the fatigue endurance requirement is intended to address the 
endurance of both the lift and its interface with the vehicle, we 
believe it is critical to conduct the test with the lift attached to 
the vehicle. As discussed earlier in this document, lift manufacturers 
may use whatever means they choose to base their certification that the 
lift complies with the standard. However, we will run our compliance 
tests with the lift attached to the vehicle. As discussed later in this 
document, we will conduct the fatigue endurance test on private-use 
lifts using a test load of either 181 kg (400 lb) or the lift's rated 
capacity, whichever is greater. Please refer to that discussion in 
subpart M, Test conditions and procedures.
    As to Lift-U's comment that the test be conducted on a test jig 
rather than the vehicle to address the possibility of overheating, we 
note that the potential for the intermittent power pack to overheat is 
not related to whether the test is conducted on a test jig or attached 
to a vehicle. We require the fatigue endurance test be conducted with 
the lift attached to a vehicle because this condition more closely 
replicates real world operating conditions and tests the integrity of 
the lift/vehicle attachment interface. We note that lift motors are 
generally not designed to run continuously for long periods of time. If 
their duty cycle is exceeded, they will heat up and may temporarily 
shutdown due to overheating. Accordingly, there must be some rest time 
between cycles. Today's rule establishes a procedure whereby the lift 
is cycles in blocks of 10 operations cycles with a minimum cool down 
period between cycles of one minute. The rest period can be longer than 
one minute; NHTSA will not determine that a lift is noncompliant simply 
because thermal overloading of the power pack may sometimes require 
more than a minute cool down period between blocks of cycles.
2. Proof Load
    We have also decided to adopt the proof load requirement proposed 
in the SNPRM. This requirement, which is tested using static load test 
II is designed to ensure that the lift continues to operate even when 
subjected to heavy loads. It is also designed to ensure that the lift's 
components are sufficiently robust for long-term use and occasional 
overloading. Comments regarding proof load were aimed at the static 
load test II requirements and are discussed in that section later in 
this document.
3. Ultimate Load
    The requirement that lifts meet an ultimate load is adopted to 
ensure the overall structural integrity of the lift. It is tested using 
static load test III where a 1,089 kg (2,400 lb) weight is placed on 
public-use lifts and at least a 726 kg (1,600 lb) weight is placed on 
private-use lifts. The lift is then inspected for breakage. We received 
considerable comments objecting to the adoption of static load test III 
and the corresponding requirement for an ultimate load. These comments 
are addressed in the section discussing static load test III.

F. Platform Free Fall Limits

    We proposed limiting 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 
platform's angular orientation by more than two degrees in any 
direction. Under the proposal, both conditions would need to be met 
when the lift is under its own power.
    While Lift-U supported the proposed vertical free fall limit, it 
suggested the regulation allow a maximum of 4.8 degrees of angular 
orientation with respect to the vehicle in the event of a single point 
failure. This comment mirrors its earlier comment regarding the maximum 
allowable deflection under normal operating conditions.
    We are adopting the free fall limits proposed in the SNPRM. As 
discussed earlier, we have adopted Lift-U's suggestion that maximum 
platform deflection be allowed up to 4.8 degrees

[[Page 79429]]

for a loaded lift and 1.8 degrees for an unloaded lift. Today's 
limitation on angular rotation while the lift is in free fall limits 
overall angular rotation to 6.8 degrees since the limitation on 
deflection is additional to the 2 degree limitation on rotation as a 
result of free fall.

G. Control Systems

    Under the SNPRM, each system would need to have a ``power'' switch, 
a ``deploy'' or ``unfold'' switch, an ``up'' switch and a ``down'' 
switch (rocker switches are considered two switches), and a ``stow'' or 
``fold'' switch. The letters would need to be at least 2.5 mm (0.01 in) 
high, and allow for easy viewing. Controls on public use lifts would 
need to be illuminated whenever the vehicle's headlights are on and 
located together in an area where the lift operator has an unobstructed 
view of the lift and its occupants at all times. We proposed that all 
controls be activated in a sequential fashion so that no two switches 
could be operated at the same time. Simple instructions on how to 
operate the lift's back-up system would be provided near the controls 
and in English. Any single-point failure in the control system could 
not prevent operation of the vehicle interlocks. We also considered 
exempting personal-use lifts from the control requirements. We then 
sought comment on whether there were any industry-accepted icons or 
pictographs and whether such icons or pictographs would be helpful. We 
also sought comment on whether requiring control-switch uniformity and/
or a power switch would have prevented any inadvertent deployments or 
other unsafe situations. Finally, we sought comment on whether the 
costs associated with control switches would be prohibitive.
    While Collins believed a main power switch was probably a good 
idea, it noted that it did not believe such a switch met the need for 
safety since it knew of no instances in which an injury occurred on a 
lift that was not in power mode. It noted that perhaps a better 
alternative to requiring an ``on/off'' switch would be to prevent the 
lift from operating until the door is open and the lift is ready to 
use. Braun also suggested that personal use lifts had no need of a 
power switch since power switches for these lifts have historically 
been incorporated by the lift installer as part of the vehicle 
interlock system. Braun noted that on personal use lifts power is 
generally introduced to the lift when the access door is opened, 
obviating the need for a power switch.
    Braun commented that it was impossible to operate a lift if the 
power switch could not be activated at the same time as the other 
control switches since the power must be activated for the lift to 
work.
    Lift-U noted that the proposed requirements for controls reflect 
the operation of some, but not all, lifts currently in production. It 
noted that 60% of the 360,000 lifts it has sold since 1982 have simple 
controls that use the terms ``power'', ``raise'', ``lower'', and 
``stow''. In these lifts, the switches may serve multiple operating 
functions.
    Lift-U and Blue Bird both had questions regarding the proposed 
requirement that the controls on a public use lift be located in a 
place where a standing lift operator had an unobstructed view of the 
lift occupant, and the occupant's wheelchair throughout the range of 
lift operations. Lift-U noted that such a requirement would prohibit 
designs where a seated operator, such as a bus driver, could operate a 
lift. Blue Bird queried whether the requirement applied to controls 
designed to control backup operation of the lift.
    No commenters knew of any icons or pictograms that had been adopted 
by a voluntary standards group or by the lift industry. Lift-U noted 
that up and down arrows are sometimes used rather than the words ``up'' 
or ``raise'' and ``down'' or ``lower''. Both Ricon and MCI argued that 
the one-inch minimum lettering requirement was unreasonable. Braun 
stated that the requirement for controls would add some cost to the 
lifts but that the increase would not be burdensome.
    The requirement in the SNPRM that all functions must be activated 
in a momentary fashion presupposes that once the force to the switch is 
removed the action controlled by the switch will also cease. This 
likely would not be the case with a power switch since it would be 
awkward to exert pressure against both the power switch and some other 
switch to operate the lift.Rather than debating whether a power switch 
can perform a momentary function within the context of today's rule, we 
have decided to specifically exclude the power switch from the 
prohibition against simultaneous performance of more than one switch. 
However, we have decided to retain the requirement that all lift 
systems come with a separate power control. Since the controls for a 
private use lift need not all be located together, the power control 
could be incorporated into the vehicle in such a way as to activate the 
power by opening the lift access door.
    The one-inch height specification in the preamble of the SNPRM was 
an error. The correct height specification was provided in the draft 
regulatory text. That specification was a minimum of 2.5 mm (0.1 in). 
We believe this minimum height specification is sufficiently large to 
be legible without being unduly design-restrictive, and we have adopted 
it in today's rule. Since there are no industry accepted icons or 
pictographs, we have decided to retain the proposed wording for the 
control functions.We believe that uniformity in the area of control 
functions is critical for commercial lifts, where there will likely be 
more than a single lift operator, and will provide the users of 
personal lifts with some assurance that they will be able to operate a 
lift other than their own if the circumstances so require. Accordingly, 
we have decided against adopting Lift-U's suggestion that arrows be 
allowed in lieu of specific wording. We also note that Lift-U may need 
to change some of its lift designs in order to bring its lifts into 
compliance with the standard.
    We have also added a requirement that the manufacturer's rated 
weightcapacity of a private-use lift be placed at the controls. We have 
added this requirement so that the lift user will know immediately 
whether the lift is sturdy enough to accommodate the weight of the lift 
user and wheelchair.
    Finally, we agree that there is no need to require controls on 
public use lifts be placed in such a manner that the lift operator has 
to be standing in order to operate the lift. Under today's rule, a 
public use lift operator may be seated as long as he has an 
unobstructed view of the lift occupant and any mobility aid while the 
lift is being operated.

H. Jacking Prevention

    We proposed that the lift's control system or design prevent the 
raising of any portion of the vehicle by the lift system if continued 
force were exerted in a downward motion after contact with the ground 
had been made.
    The Oregon DOT stated that the standard should prevent jacking and 
that resistance should be based on the amount of force needed to keep 
the lift platform in contact with the ground as the person exits the 
lift platform. All other commenters addressed the proposed requirement 
in the context of the proposed ``anti-crush'' interlock discussed later 
in this document.
    We have decided to retain the requirement that the lift be designed 
in a manner that prevents it from continuing to exert a downward force 
when the platform has made contact with the ground. We believe that 
such a requirement is important to prevent undue strain on the lift's 
operating components. As many lifts have a gravity-down design, they 
will

[[Page 79430]]

automatically stop once they impact the ground or another hard surface. 
We do not believe it is necessary to specify a particular force 
application. Either the lift stops when it meets the ground or it 
doesn't. While the SAE recommended practice specifies that a lift with 
a power-down system cannot exert a force greater than the weight of the 
lift components, this is simply another way of saying that the lift 
can't move or lift the vehicle up. We have, however, decided against 
adopting the related proposed anti-jacking, anti-crush interlock. Our 
rationale for dropping that proposed requirement is discussed more 
fully later in this document.

I. Backup Operation

    We also proposed in the SNPRM that platform lifts have a manually-
operated back-up system that allows for full use of the lift in the 
event of a power failure. The back-up would allow for disembarkment as 
well as lift stowage. Under the proposal, operating instructions would 
need to be located near the control panel and in the vehicle owner's 
manual.
    Lift-U posited that a lift need only be operable in a loaded 
condition when the lift was being lowered. It noted that in the event 
of a power failure, the need was to get a disabled occupant out of the 
vehicle and to stow an empty lift so that it would not create a 
dangerous condition. Accordingly, it believed there was no reason to 
require that a loaded lift work in an upward direction during backup 
operations.
    The back-up operation is not intended as a substitute for normal 
operation of the lift. Accordingly, we agree with Lift-U that there is 
no need for the lift to be operable in the upward direction when 
loaded. The wording in the regulatory text has been changed to state 
that only an unloaded lift need be operable when lifting the platform 
from the ground.

J. Interlocks

    In the SNPRM, we proposed ten, separate interlocks. Since the 
comments focused on discrete groups of interlocks, they are identified 
and discussed below. We sought comment on whether we should specify a 
means of determining when a lift surface is occupied, and if so, how; 
and whether there are means, other than force or weight detection, 
already being used or that manufacturers intend to use to determine 
resistance and occupancy.
    Some comments applied generally to most or all of the proposed 
interlocks. For example, Lift-U requested that we make it clear that an 
interlock may be a design feature that prevents a particular action. 
The Michigan DOT, while supportive of the use of interlocks, stated 
that we should provide an option to allow a person to override all 
interlock systems in an emergency situation. All of the commenters 
supported the specification of a specific force necessary to actuate 
the interlocks designed to detect a lift occupant or bystander. NJ 
Transit asked that NHTSA take into account the increased resistance 
necessary for normal operation of the wheelchair retention device as 
the lift ages. It was concerned that if the resistance were set too 
low, the interlocks would trigger increasingly easily as the lift ages. 
Some commenters also suggested we specify those portions of the 
platform, bridging device, and vehicle floor that are affected by an 
interlock.
    The first proposed interlock would prevent forward and rearward 
movement of the vehicle when the lift is not stowed. The second 
interlock would prevent deployment of the lift unless the lift access 
door is open and some affirmative action has been taken to prevent the 
vehicle from moving, such as setting the parking brake.
    The Wisconsin DOT appeared to believe the interlocks designed to 
prevent vehicle movement when the lift is in use or lift usage when the 
vehicle is in motion were required to be tied to the vehicle parking 
brake. Accordingly, it asked how to prevent the vehicle from being 
driven once the parking brake was released, even though the lift was 
not stowed. Bendix, NMEDA, and an individual commenter indicated that 
it should be allowable to link the interlocks to the service brakes. 
Bendix noted that actuation of the parking brake has an effect on the 
wear of the vehicle air brakes. In order to overcome the problem, air 
brake manufacturers have developed auxiliary service brake interlock 
systems that allow the service brake to act in a manner similar to a 
parking brake. This redundant system allows the vehicle driver to leave 
the driver's seat without setting the parking brake. NMEDA suggested it 
might be more appropriate to specify the interlock must function by a 
means ``other than manually applying the vehicles service brakes.'' ATC 
suggested the regulatory text require that the interlock prevent 
accidental or malicious release of the interlock. Collins noted that it 
knew of no instance in which anyone had been injured by a lift that was 
operated when the access door was closed, although it had manufactured 
an externally-mounted lift that could be damaged if it were operated 
before the access door was opened. Finally, Braun and Ricon suggested 
that the certification responsibility for these interlock requirements 
be assigned to the vehicle manufacturer instead of the lift 
manufacturer since the interlocks will be vehicle specific.
    These two interlocks are already required for public use lifts 
underADAAG and are adopted today as part of the final rule. Lift 
manufacturers need not link the first interlock to the vehicle's 
parking brake. The SNPRM merely noted that linking the interlock to the 
parking brake was one means of meeting the proposed requirement. Other 
designs may be equally effective. Our primary concern is that the 
interlock not be linked to a service brake that requires the brake 
pedal be depressed in order to work the brake. The type of system 
discussed by Bendix, which is based on an auxiliary system that has 
been built into the service brake, appears to achieve the same goal as 
engaging the parking brake. Accordingly, the regulatory text has been 
changed to specify that the transmission be in ``park'' or ``neutral'' 
and the parking or service brakes be applied in a manner other than by 
the vehicle operator depressing the service brake pedal.
    We have decided against shifting the burden of compliance with the 
requirement for the first interlock to the vehicle manufacturer. We 
believe it is appropriate that both the lift manufacturer and the 
vehicle manufacturer bear compliance responsibility. While it is true 
that the interlocks adopted today may require vehicle specific 
interfacing, we continue to believe the ultimate burden of compliance 
best rests upon the lift manufacturer. Under today's rule, the lift 
manufacturer must provide information identifying the appropriate 
vehicle make/model/year for a particular lift design. It must also 
ensure that the installation hardware is fully compatible with those 
vehicles and that the installation instructions provide detailed 
guidance. These instructions should include a series of tests designed 
to confirm that the lift has been properly installed. The vehicle 
manufacturer is then required to meet all of the lift manufacturer's 
conditions before certifying that the vehicle meets the requirements of 
FMVSS No. 404.
    While we take note of ATC's comment that the first interlock should 
be designed so as to prevent accidental or malicious release, we have 
decided against adopting such a requirement. Certainly, the interlock 
should be designed in a manner that prevents, at a minimum, accidental 
release. However, the standard already requires the interlock to meet 
certain conditions,

[[Page 79431]]

such as placing the vehicle in park or neutral and setting the parking 
or auxiliary service brake, that minimize the risk of an accidental 
release. We are not persuaded that the risk of a malicious release is 
sufficiently high to merit adding another restriction on the interlock 
design.
    We also appreciate Collins' comment that it is unlikely an occupied 
lift would be operated while the access door was closed. The second 
interlock is not intended to prevent an occupied lift from operating 
while the access door is closed. Rather, our concern is that the 
operation of a non-occupied lift could damage the lift, creating a 
safety risk to future occupants. It is irrelevant whether the access 
door is open or closed. Both conditions could lead to lift damage. As 
Collins has noted that it is aware of instances in which such damage 
occurred, we believe it is appropriate to adopt the second interlock as 
proposed, except we have dropped the provision addressing the status of 
the access door.
    The third interlock prevents stowage of the lift platform when 
occupied. Braun noted that it believed an interlock that detects 
platform occupancy was a good idea, but it should only need to detect a 
weight greater than 23 kg (50 lb). It also claimed that the interlock 
should only be required for commercial lifts since a personal lift user 
would be unlikely to stow the lift while on it.
    We have decided to specify a minimum weight of 23 kg (50 lb), as we 
believe it is unlikely that an occupant less than that weight is likely 
to be unattended on a lift. Additionally, we have decided to specify a 
test device that has both the weight and structure to accommodate 
various interlock technologies.
    We believe this interlock is important for both public and private 
use lifts. We acknowledge that, in many private use applications, the 
lift operator will be aware that the stow function has been 
inadvertently actuated because the operator will be the lift occupant. 
However, depending on the nature and severity of the occupant's 
disability, the individual may not be able to react in time to prevent 
a mishap. It is also possible that someone other than the lift occupant 
may operate a private use lift. In these instances, the risk of 
improper stowage is akin to the risk faced by public lift users.
    The fourth and fifth interlocks prevent movement of the lift, 
either up or down, if the lift's inner roll stop is not deployed and if 
the wheelchair retention device is not deployed. Braun and NMEDA 
opposed the adoption of the interlock designed to prevent improper 
stowage of the inner roll stop, noting that it was unaware of any 
injuries related to such a condition. NMEDA also suggested that the 
lift be operable in a downward position if the wheelchair retention 
device fails so that the lift occupant can be unloaded from the 
vehicle.
    We have decided to adopt these two interlocks as proposed in the 
SNPRM. We note that the fourth interlock is not related to the improper 
stowage of the inner roll stop, but rather a condition where the inner 
roll stop is not deployed. On many private use lifts, there may not be 
an inner roll stop, and no interlock would be required. However, for 
those lifts that are equipped with an inner roll stop, we believe it is 
critical that the lift not move up or down unless that inner roll stop 
is in place. An inner roll stop that is not deployed while the lift is 
moving creates the same risk of injury as a lift with no inner roll 
stop. We believe this interlock will prevent injuries resulting from an 
occupant being crushed or pinched between the lift and the vehicle. We 
believe NMEDA and Braun's comments were related to the sixth proposed 
interlock, which prevented stowage of the outer barrier. That interlock 
is discussed below.
    As to NMEDA's suggestion that the lift be operable in a downward 
position if the fifth interlock is activated, we would expect the lift 
operator to use the manual back-up operation to unload the lift 
occupant from either the lift or the vehicle.
    A sixth interlock would prevent stowage of the wheelchair retention 
device unless the platform is within 75 mm (3 in) of the ground. APTA 
stated that precluding the stowage of the retention device unless the 
lift were within 75 mm (3 in) of the ground would prevent certain lift 
designs that stow the lift when they reach the first vehicle step. We 
recognize that there are over-the-road lift designs in which the front 
step is less than 75 mm (3 in) from the ground when the lift starts to 
stow. The proposed interlock could have precluded the use of such a 
design. However, we have decided not to adopt this interlock because we 
believe it is redundant of the performance requirement that the outer 
barrier be fully deployed once the lift is more than three inches from 
ground level. Accordingly, these types of lift systems may still be 
used.
    The seventh interlock would require the lift to cease movement if 
it encounters resistance while moving downward. We sought comment on 
whether we should specify a quantifiable amount of resistance to 
trigger the proposed interlock.
    While two commenters implicitly supported an interlock to prevent 
jacking and crushing by asking us to specify a quantifiable amount of 
resistance to trigger the interlock, the majority of commenters opposed 
a requirement that would prevent jacking and crushing, arguing that 
such an interlock would be too costly and unreliable since the sensor 
would have to detect any obstructions under the platform. Stewart & 
Stevenson noted that in its experience these types of interlocks were 
extremely unreliable as they were constantly exposed to adverse 
environmental conditions. The commenters also noted that an anti-
jacking device was not needed since the majority of lifts are gravity-
down designs that cease movement once they contact a firm surface. 
Braun claimed that the relatively slow operating velocity of six inches 
per second was sufficient to allow bystanders to move out of the way of 
the lift, obviating the need for an interlock designed to prevent crush 
injuries.
    Recognizing the significant design problems associated with such an 
interlock, we have decided against adopting it as part of the final 
rule. We are not confident that it would be possible to design an anti-
crushing interlock that would be sufficiently robust to operate for any 
reasonable period of time. Additionally, we believe the performance 
requirements preventing anti-jacking and maximum operating velocity 
sufficiently protect against the risk of injury the interlock was 
intended to address. We note that we do not believe a system designed 
merely to prevent further downward movement of the lift once it has 
reached the ground poses the same problems. Such a system could use a 
simple force sensor that indicates a significant amount of resistance 
against the platform. It is for this reason that we have retained the 
requirement that the lifts come equipped with an anti-jacking mechanism 
as discussed earlier in this document.
    The eighth and ninth interlocks would prevent deployment of an 
occupied outer barrier or inner roll stop when occupied. The last 
interlock would preclude downward movement of the lift when both the 
lift platform and the vehicle floor or the lift's bridging device are 
occupied. We sought comment on whether anyone knew of injuries 
attributable to improperly stowing inner roll stops.
    Stewart & Stevenson noted that an interlock that would prevent the 
lift from moving down when both the lift

[[Page 79432]]

and the bridging device is occupied would require the development of 
new technologies. Braun commented that no interlocks were needed to 
detect occupancy on the inner roll stops, the vehicle floor or a 
bridging device because the activation of the threshold warning alarm 
would notify both the lift user and operator that loading was not 
complete. In a similar vein, the Michigan DOT stated that it believed 
these interlocks could be handled with a LED lighting system. Braun 
also noted that it knew of no manufacturer that had incorporated an 
interlock design that detected weight on the lift's outer barrier. 
While it did not object to the requirement of such an interlock, it did 
state that the absence of such interlocks pointed to the difficulty of 
designing a system that can detect the presence of any portion of the 
wheelchair or lift occupant. Braun also suggested the interlock be 
limited to public use lifts, as an individual would have a good idea of 
whether he was completely on or off of a lift that the individual used 
on a regular basis.
    We have decided to adopt the eighth and ninth interlocks as 
proposed in the SNPRM. These interlocks were developed as a direct 
result of comments on the NPRM. In the comments on that notice, a 
commenter representing Contra Costa county in California pointed out 
that it knew of cases where the wheels of the wheelchair were on the 
outer barrier while the lift was operated and the lift occupant was 
pitched off the lift.
    We have decided against adopting the tenth proposed interlock, 
which would have prevented the downward motion of the platform if the 
bridging device or threshold area and the lift were occupied. We agree 
that such an interlock could be both complex and costly to implement. 
Additionally, we agree that the threshold-warning alert largely 
obviates the need for this interlock.

K. Operations Counter

    In the SNPRM, we tentatively proposed requiring an operations 
counter so that scheduled maintenance could be tied to lift use. We 
sought comment on the need for an operations counter as part of a 
standard.
    We received comments both supporting a requirement for an 
operations counter and opposed to such a requirement. Collins equated 
an operations counter with an odometer, noting that it believed basing 
maintenance on an operations counter was the only effective way to 
ensure adequate maintenance. Those opposed to such a requirement, 
including Stewart & Stevenson, stated that maintenance schedules should 
be based on the scheduled maintenance for the vehicle to which the lift 
is attached.
    With slight modification, we have adopted the requirement for an 
operations counter as proposed in the SNPRM. Lift maintenance schedules 
may be based on vehicle maintenance schedules and/or the number of lift 
cycles. A lift that is seldom used will require periodic maintenance 
even though it has relatively few accumulated cycles. In those 
instances, it may be more appropriate to have the lift maintained at 
the same time the vehicle is serviced. For other vehicles, more regular 
maintenance may be required because the lift is subjected to heavier 
usage patterns. The lift manufacturer will have no way of knowing 
whether a particular lift is likely to be used rarely or often. 
Accordingly, we believe it is important that maintenance have some 
relation to the number of lift cycles. However, we also believe that 
the lift operator may, at its option, also specify an additional 
maintenance schedule that is not dependent on the number of lift 
cycles. The regulatory text governing the information required in the 
owner's manual insert has been changed to clarify that maintenance 
schedules must have some relationship to the number of lift cycles 
indicated by the operations counter.

L. Vehicle Owner's Manual Insert

    In the SNPRM we proposed the lift manufacturer would have to 
provide a vehicle owner's manual insert that specifies the recommended 
maintenance schedule, lift usage instructions, and, for personal-use 
lifts, the lift's operating volume and whether rearward loading is 
required. ATC suggested the requirement specify that all lift materials 
intended for the ultimate user of the lift be placed together in a 
pouch that is sent with the lift or attached to the lift in a 
weatherproof container. We believe that the vehicle owner's manual 
insert, as well as the installation instructions and any additional 
documentation would be packaged together and somehow shipped with the 
lift in a way that the package would not be separated from the lift or 
damaged. While this could be achieved in that manner suggested by ATC, 
a lift manufacturer could use another method that works equally well. 
In any case, we do not believe there is a need to specify exactly how 
this specification is met.
    We have imposed specific requirements for the owner's manual insert 
so that lift operators know whether the lift is certified as 
appropriate for public or private use, and so users of private-use 
lifts are aware of those aspects of lift design that may affect whether 
a particular individual should use the lift and how. Accordingly, each 
insert must state whether the lift is for public or private use. 
Additionally, inserts for private use lifts must give the platform 
dimensions, the lift's rated weight capacity, and, in the absence of an 
inner roll stop, the instruction that the lift be loaded in a rearward 
direction.

M. Installation Instruction Insert

    We also proposed in the SNPRM that lift manufacturers include with 
each set of installation instructions a page specifying 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 the lift standard 
once the lift is installed. We requested comment on how common it is 
not to provide written installation instructions with lifts and whether 
such a requirement is needed.
    The majority of those commenting supported requiring lift 
manufacturers to provide installation instructions with each lift. 
Collins noted that all lifts it installed came with installation 
instructions and that such instructions were necessary. It did not 
discuss whether every lift came with its own set of instructions or 
whether instruction manuals, similar to body builder's guides, were 
available for each lift style. Braun stated that installation 
instructions are provided with lifts as a matter of course. However, 
ATC stated that individual lift instructions were unnecessary since the 
major vehicle manufacturers who regularly install lifts install the 
lifts in accordance with a protocol that has been approved by the lift 
manufacturer; additional instructions are only provided when there are 
changes in the lift equipment or the existing protocol needs to be 
changed.
    We have decided to require installation instructions for each lift. 
The process of providing instructions with each lift is fundamentally 
the same as the requirement that incomplete vehicle manufacturers 
provide subsequent manufacturers with an incomplete vehicle document 
(IVD). In such cases, each incomplete vehicle must come equipped with 
an IVD;

[[Page 79433]]

however, the incomplete vehicle manufacturers also provide body builder 
guides that go into considerably more detail than the IVD. Likewise, in 
this instance we expect lift manufacturer to continue training its 
installers and to provide ancillary documentation such as a body 
builder guide that need not accompany every lift. However, installation 
instructions need to be complete and must identify the vehicle make/
model/year appropriate for the particular lift. The instructions must 
also state, on the cover or first page, whether the lift has been 
certified for public or private use, and, in the case of those 
certified for private use, the lift's rated capacity. Lift 
manufacturers may reference more detailed instructions in the 
installation instructions if including the highly detailed instructions 
for each lift is unwieldy. However, those more detailed instructions 
must be made available to each lift installer using the manufacturer's 
lift.

N. Test Conditions and Procedures

    As discussed in the SNPRM, we believe that tests that may have an 
effect on the vehicle/lift interface (i.e., inner roll stop, static 
load test I, fatigue endurance, and static load test II) would likely 
need to be performed with the lift attached to the vehicle, while other 
tests could likely be performed on a test jig. We sought comment on the 
estimated costs of the proposed compliance tests, including the three 
static load tests. We also sought comment on how lift manufacturers 
currently test for compliance with the ADAAG requirements and whether 
the proposed static load tests would be sufficient to allow a 
manufacturer to verify compliance with the ADAAG requirements.
    Several commenters, including Stewart & Stevenson, Provost, and 
Lift-U stated that the testing costs associated with compliance will be 
significantly greater than contemplated by NHTSA in the SNPRM and 
preliminary regulatory evaluation. Braun and Ricon indicated that the 
additional cost would be nominal. MCI asked if finite element analysis 
was an acceptable alternative the dynamic tests.
    Braun averred that all performance criteria should be based on the 
lift's rated capacity rather than requiring that all lifts accommodate 
a 272 kg (600 lb) load (or a multiplier thereof in the case of static 
load tests II and III). Braun noted that lifts designed for minivans 
are generally rated at no more than 181 kg (400 lb). Because an 
individual with a combined wheelchair/body weight in excess of 181 kg 
(400 lb) is generally required to purchase a larger vehicle to 
accommodate the user's size.
    While lift manufacturers are free to use whatever methods they wish 
to determine whether the lift complies with FMVSS No. 403, we will 
conduct all dynamic tests in the manner specified in the regulatory 
text. For some of the tests, a finite element analysis may sufficiently 
assure manufacturers that their lifts can meet the test conditions 
specified in this rule. For other tests, such as static load tests I 
and II, we believe it is unlikely that such an analysis would provided 
adequate assurances since those tests are designed to assure that the 
lift is fully functional. In any case the determination of how much and 
what type of testing is required to meet the manufacturer's good faith 
determination of compliance ultimately rests with the manufacturer.
    The proposed requirement that all lifts be tested with a 272 kg 
(600 lb) mass, or multiplier thereof, was based on our belief that many 
lift users are likely to approach a 272 kg (600 lb) weight. As an 
example, this mass requirement is approached by two separate potential 
weight combinations: that of a 99th percentile male, weighing 109 kg 
(241 lb), with a powered wheelchair, weighing 113 kg (250 lb), for a 
total weight of 222 kg (491 lb); and that of a 99th percentile male in 
a manual wheelchair and an attendant (245 kg (540 lb)). While these 
examples are below the 272 kg (600 lb) limit, in some cases people and 
wheelchairs will weigh more. Additionally, industry standards and the 
ADA require a 272 kg (600 lb) lifting capacity. However, we recognize 
that in many instances the combined wheelchair/occupant weight will be 
considerably smaller than 272 kg (600 lb). A child in a manual 
wheelchair, even if attended on the lift by a full-sized adult, would 
likely weigh less than 135 kg (300 lb). Likewise, a full-size adult 
with a manual wheelchair and no attendant would easily weight less than 
the 181 kg (400 lb) to which many personal use lifts are currently 
rated. We believe these smaller lifts serve an important function in 
providing individuals with lifts that meet their particular needs both 
in terms of load-bearing capacity and increased vehicle choice.
    Accordingly, we are adopting a definition of a standard load in 
today's rule. For public-use lifts, the standard load will remain 272 
kg (600 lb). We believe this degree of load bearing capacity is 
critical for lifts that are not custom ordered to meet a particular 
person's individual needs. However, for private-use lifts, the standard 
load will be the lift's rated capacity or 181 kg (400 lb), whichever is 
greater. We are specifying a minimum load bearing capacity because we 
believe any lift should be able to accommodate 181 kg (400 lb). We are 
unaware of any lift designs that are not rated to at least 181 kg (400 
lb). We are not simply setting the standard load at 181 kg (400 lb) 
because we are also aware that many personal use lifts are rated at a 
higher weight and that many individuals require a sturdier lift. Since 
the standard load is used to mimic weights likely to be placed on a 
lift during actual operations, or as a basis for determining whether 
sufficient safety factors have been incorporated into a lift's design, 
we believe the sturdier lifts should be tested in a manner consistent 
with their rated capacity.
    A detailed discussion of the costs associated with conducting 
compliance tests is provided later in this document. The other concerns 
are addressed below in the discussion of each test.
1. Test Devices
    In the SNPRM we proposed using a test pallet designed to mimic the 
size of a standard powered wheelchair. Its base would be 66 mm x 686 mm 
(26 in x 27 in). For the static load tests, the pallet would be loaded 
with rectangular steel plates of uniform thickness with dimensions 
between 533 mm and 686 mm (21 and 27 in). We received no comments 
objecting to the suitability of the proposed test pallet and have 
adopted it as proposed in the SNPRM.
    We also proposed using a mobility device for testing that 
approximates the size and weight of popular powered wheelchairs 
currently on the market. As discussed earlier in the section addressing 
outer barriers and retention devices, we have decided against adopting 
the ISO device, as suggested by Braun, because that device is not 
powered and thus does not place sufficient force against the retaining 
devices (outer barriers, inner roll stops, or other retention device) 
to adequately test those systems. Accordingly, we have adopted the 
device proposed in the SNPRM.
    We have also adopted a test device for testing compliance with the 
restrictions on gaps, transitions, and openings. This test device 
consists of a solid, rigid box with a height and width of 17 mm (0.67 
in) and a depth of 100 mm (4 in). In order to test for platform 
occupancy for the interlock tests where such occupancy must be 
detected, we are specifying a rigid test box (150 x 150 x 300 mm (6 x 6 
x 12 in)) with a total weight of 23 kg (50 lb).

[[Page 79434]]

2. Static Load Test I--Working Load
    Proposed static load test I was an operational test in which the 
lift would be exercised though its full cycle of movement. The lift 
would be required to function in both the loaded and unloaded 
conditions. The loaded condition would be met by placing a 272 kg (600 
lb) load on the lift. Testing with an empty platform was specified to 
ensure that the lift operates properly during that portion of the usage 
cycle when the lift is not occupied.
    The only comments we received regarding this test procedure was the 
comment by Braun and NMEDA that the test should be conducted using 
ballast equivalent to the lift's rated capacity rather than the 
specified 272 kg (600 lb). This comment has already been addressed 
above. Accordingly, we are adopting the procedure largely as proposed. 
The only changes are that private use lifts will be tested with a 181 
kg (400 lb) load or a load equivalent to the lift's rated capacity, 
whichever is greater, and the requirement that the lift be stopped mid-
way through the lift cycle has been removed. The lift will still be 
stopped once through the lift cycle, but we do not be believe it is 
necessary to specify where exactly that should occur.
    Using the control panel, the test operator will deploy the stowed 
platform, center the pallet on the lift and center the standard load on 
the pallet. The lift will then be lowered to the ground level, stopping 
once during the process. The pallet will be removed from the platform 
and the lift cycled up, stowed, and cycled back down, stopping once 
during each up or down cycle. The test pallet will then be reloaded 
onto the platform that would then be cycled up to the vehicle floor 
level loading position, stopping once during the cycle. The pallet will 
be removed and the lift stowed. The power will be turned off and the 
portions of the test that apply to backup operations will be repeated 
manually, using the lift's manual backup mode.
3. Static Load Test II--Proof Load
    The static load test II requires a test load of three times the 
standard load appropriate for a lift to be centered on the platform 
while the lift is at the vehicle floor level loading position. For 
public use lifts, this load will be 816 kg (1,800 lb). For private use 
lifts, the load will be at least 544 kg (1,200 lb), but could be more 
if the lift's rated load is greater than 181 kg (400 lb). This 
constitutes a change from the test proposed in the SNPRM, which would 
have required a test load of 816 kg (1,800 lb) for all lifts. As was 
proposed earlier, the load would remain on the platform for two 
minutes, after which it will be removed. The lift and vehicle will be 
inspected for separation, fractures or breakage, and static load test I 
will be repeated to ensure that all lift components still function.
    Braun and NMEDA stated that the test should be tested on a test jig 
rather than on a vehicle. NMEDA maintained that the test was 
impractical if conducted with the lift attached to the vehicle since 
most vehicle floor structures are not developed to withstand the 
proposed level of concentrated loading. It stated that the current 
industry practice is to test lift installation to 125% of the lift 
manufacturer's rated capacity of the lift. Under current industry 
practice, the installation is acceptable if there is no permanent 
deformation of the vehicle floor or other mounting structure. Stewart & 
Stevenson asked whether it would be allowed to certify compliance using 
a test jig and have the responsibility of adequate lift-to-vehicle 
interface borne by the vehicle manufacturer.
    We continue to believe static load test II should be conducted with 
the lift installed on the vehicle. After this test the lift must remain 
fully operational. Thus, the integrity of the connection of the lift to 
the vehicle cannot be compromised. As discussed earlier, manufacturers 
may use whatever means they believe is appropriate to ensure compliance 
with the standard. Accordingly, it is not necessary for this test to be 
conducted on every possible vehicle make/model/year for which the lift 
is appropriate as long as the lift manufacturer is confident that the 
lift will comply on those vehicles based on its own testing and 
analysis. However, we will conduct this test with the lift installed on 
a vehicle that the lift manufacturer has identified as appropriate for 
the lift. As to NMEDA's request that the load be limited to 125% of the 
lift's rated capacity, we note that such a requirement would be only 
nominally more stringent that static load test I. Since the point of 
this test is to assure that the lift remains fully functional even 
after it has been exposed to a severe condition, we believe that a test 
load that is three times the lift's rated capacity better ensures that 
catastrophic failures will not occur in the real world.
4. Static Load Test III--Ultimate Load
    The proposed static load test III was designed to ensure that the 
lift could support the heaviest wheelchair/user combination without the 
lift collapsing. Under the proposal, the lift would not be required to 
operate, and we anticipated that the size of the load would cause 
permanent deformation to the lift/vehicle system. The test, as 
proposed, requires a test pallet and load with a mass of 1,088 kg 
(2,400 lb) be placed on the lift platform. This weight was the 
equivalent of four times the minimum lift capacity proposed in the 
NPRM. The loaded pallet would have been left on the platform for two 
minutes and then removed. The lift would then have been inspected for 
separation, fracture, or breakage. The lift was to be tested on a 
vehicle or a test jig and was not expected to remain operable after the 
load had been removed. We sought comment on whether the static load 
test III added safety benefits above and beyond those achieved in 
static load test II.
    Collins, Braun, NMEDA, and Steward & Stevenson all opposed the 
adoption of the Static load III test, arguing that it was to onerous. 
Collins noted that the static load test III was effectively a design 
standard, and that since NHTSA does not require an ultimate load 
analysis for vehicle structures there appeared to be no need for such a 
requirement for lifts. Stewart & Stevenson argued that static load test 
III has no safety benefit above that realized with a combination of 
static load test II and the finite element analysis already required by 
the ADAAG regulations and California Title 13. Braun and NMEDA argued 
that if the requirement were adopted, the test should be based on the 
rated capacity of the lift. Braun maintained that the fatigue endurance 
test, when coupled with the other static load tests adequately ensured 
the lifts were designed with sufficient safety factors.
    We do not believe static load test III poses an onerous burden for 
lift manufacturers. By the same token, we are satisfied that the test 
is fully consistent with the design strictures of the ADA's 
implementation regulations. Ultimate strength tests for mechanical 
systems have long been standard practice.\12\ Safety factors between 4 
and 12 have traditionally been used for elevators, hoisting equipment, 
lifting

[[Page 79435]]

devices, as well as for the chains, cables, and pulleys incorporated 
into such devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The ultimate strength is the maximum unit stress that the 
material or system is capable of withstanding and is based on the 
product of the working load and a factor of safety. Minimum safety 
factors do not directly influence how a device performs its intended 
function. Rather, they serve to control the robustness of a complete 
device or its components parts, to assure that the device, as 
manufactured, will meet minimum requirements for safe operation in 
the intended environment for an assumed minimum service life, and to 
compensate for the variability of material strength and wear 
characteristics when average design values are used during the 
design process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first formal requirements regarding wheelchair lifts for 
vehicles were published by the Veterans Administration in the mid-1970s 
as a set of procurement guidelines. These guidelines, which have served 
as the basis for many subsequent guidelines for both public and private 
use vehicles, required a safety factor of six and a working load of 181 
kg (400 lb). The ultimate strength test under the DVA guidelines was 
1,089 kg (2,400 lb).When the SAE developed its recommended practice for 
platform lifts, it took into consideration the trend towards heavier, 
powered wheelchairs and raised the recommended standard load to 272 kg 
(600 lb). However, it dropped the safety factor to four, maintaining an 
ultimate test strength of 1,089 kg (2,400 lb). Today's requirement 
adopting static load test III merely retains these long-standing 
requirements and assesses the strength of the lift's components in a 
way that is not already addressed by static load test II or the fatigue 
endurance test.
    ADAAG regulations require a design load for public use lifts of at 
least 272 kg (600 lb) (49 CFR 38.23). The regulations also specify that 
working parts that can be expected to wear, such as cables, pulleys, 
and shafts, upon which the lift depends for support of the load, have a 
safety factor of at least six. Nonworking parts that are not expected 
to wear, such as the lift platform, frame and attachment hardware, must 
have a safety factor of three. Both safety factors are based on the 
ultimate strength of the particular component's material. A lift 
designed to meet these requirements should be able to withstand a load 
of 816 kg (1,800 lb) without separation, fracture or breakage of any 
portion of the lift. Additionally, those working parts that are 
expected to wear should be able to withstand a load of 1,632 kg (3,600 
lb) without separation, fracture, or breakage. The California Title 13 
requirements mirror these requirements.
    Safety factors can be specified both as an element of design 
(design safety factor) and as a functional requirement subject to 
performance testing (testable safety factor). A design safety factor 
need not be tested at the level specified in order to provide the 
requisite level of safety, particularly when multiple design safety 
factors apply to a single system. In the case of the ADAAG regulations, 
we do not believe the lift, as a whole, can reasonably be tested at the 
higher minimum safety factor of 1,632 kg (3,600 lb) (6 times the design 
load). By the same token, we are unconvinced that static load test II, 
which tests the entire lift system at the minimum safety factor of 
three times the lift's design load, sufficiently guarantees that a 
lift's movable components are sufficiently robust. The question then 
becomes how to test for both those components that must have a design 
safety factor of 6 without unreasonably testing those components that 
only require a design factor of one-half that amount?
    We believe that static load test III, when coupled with the fatigue 
endurance test, establishes performance requirements that adequately 
test for the design factors of the ADAAG regulations without imposing 
an undue burden on lift manufacturers. Non-working parts are actually 
required to meet a higher testable safety factor than the design factor 
specified in the ADAAG regulations. Working parts are required to meet 
a testable safety factor that in static load test III constitutes 67% 
of the amount specified as a design factor in the ADAAG regulations and 
must, under static load test II, remain fully operational after being 
subjected to a load that is 50% of the level specified in the ADAAG 
regulations. Finally, the fatigue endurance test amply evaluates 
whether those components likely to wear are suitable for safe operation 
of the lift in its intended environment, over a long period of time.
    As discussed more fully above, we have decided to grant Braun and 
NMEDA's request that this test be based on a multiplier of the rated 
capacity of the lift, with a minimum rated load of 181 kg (400 lb). 
This will make the ultimate strength test load for private use lifts at 
least 724 kg (1,600 lb) and at least four times the lift's rated load.
5. Interlock Test Procedures
    As discussed in the SNPRM, the proposed interlocks needed test 
procedures if they were to be incorporated into the standard. We have 
developed test procedures for those interlocks that remain. Testing for 
the first and second interlocks is as simple as attempting to drive the 
vehicle when the lift is deployed and attempting to deploy the lift 
when the vehicle is moving. The third interlock will be tested by 
placing a 23 kg (50 lb) test load on the lift platform when the lift is 
in a position in which it can be stowed and then attempting to stow the 
lift. The fourth interlock will be tested by placing a front wheel of 
the wheelchair test device on the inner roll stop so as to prevent its 
deployment and then verifying that the lift cannot move up or down. The 
interlock testing the wheelchair retention device will be conducted in 
the same way, although the device need not be deployed when the lift is 
within three inches of the ground. The last two interlocks will be 
tested by placing the front wheel of the wheelchair test device on the 
inner roll stop or outer barrier and attempting to operate the lift. If 
the platform is too small to allow only one front wheel to be placed on 
the inner roll stop or outer barrier, both front wheels may be placed 
on those devices.

IX. Vehicle Requirements

    As discussed in the SNPRM, the proposed vehicle requirements would 
apply to all motor vehicles equipped with a platform lift. 
Certification of compliance with the lift standard would rest with the 
lift manufacturer, and each lift would be marked either ``DOT-private 
use lift'' or ``DOT-public use lift''. However, the vehicle 
manufacturer would have to certify that it followed all lift 
installation instructions (including installing the lift only on a 
vehicle that the lift manufacturer has identified as compatible), 
placed the required owner's manual insert in the vehicle owner's 
manual, and installed the control panel in a location specified by the 
vehicle standard and the installation instructions. The vehicle 
manufacturer or alterer would also need to assure that it has met the 
certification requirements in 49 CFR part 567. While the vehicle 
standard would not impose any new compliance costs, the costs of 
conducting a recall campaign for non-compliant vehicles would be borne 
by the vehicle manufacturer or alterer.
    In the SNPRM we proposed requiring the platform lift be installed 
in accordance with the lift manufacturer's instructions, including the 
lift manufacturer's directions as to the appropriate vehicle type for 
the lift. Lift manufacturer's instructions could include operational 
tests to ensure that the lift has been properly installed. The majority 
of commenters agreed that requiring vehicle manufacturers or alterers 
to install lifts in the manner set forth in the lift manufacturer's 
installation instructions would adequately ensure that platform lifts 
are installed safely. NMEDA noted that lift manufacturers generally 
provide both instructions and formal training to their franchised 
dealers and there is a growing tendency to only sell lifts to those 
dealers who have received formal training. Ricon stated that while 
generic installation instructions are provided with each lift, 
variations in vehicle body styles made it impractical to provide 
specific instructions for every application. Accordingly, it maintained 
that the lift installer must bear some

[[Page 79436]]

responsibility for ensuring the integrity of the lift as installed on 
the vehicle.
    We would agree that the vehicle manufacturer bears some 
responsibility for ensuring that the lift is installed in a manner that 
does not negate the lift manufacturer's certification of compliance. 
Several aspects of FMVSS No. 403 are dependent on the lift/vehicle 
interface. However, we do not expect a vehicle manufacturer to divine 
the lift manufacturer's intent on how these interfaces work. Instead, 
it is imperative that the lift manufacturer provides the vehicle 
manufacturer with all information and equipment needed to install the 
lift in a manner that will result in a fully functioning lift. These 
instructions should include any check tests that are required to verify 
that the interfacing is proper. We note that the lift manufacturer's 
greatest security is in highly detailed installation instructions. This 
is because the vehicle manufacturer must certify that it has followed 
those instructions when installing the lift. As for the comment that 
highly detailed instructions that apply to a series of vehicles are 
more useful that instructions provided with each lift, this issue has 
already been addressed earlier in this document.
    We received no comments on the proposed requirements that the 
vehicle manufacturer place the owner's manual insert in the owner's 
manual or that the control panel be installed in a position where the 
lift operator would have an unobstructed view of the lift and its 
occupants. Those requirements are adopted as proposed in SNPRM.
    Under today's rule, the vehicle manufacturer or alterer will need 
to ensure that the owner's manual insert, required by the lift 
standard, is placed in the vehicle owner's manual. If the vehicle does 
not come with an owner's manual, the vehicle manufacturer should take 
steps to ensure that the vehicle purchaser receives the insert. This 
could be achieved by placing the insert in a glove box or by attaching 
it to the vehicle steering wheel.
    For vehicles equipped with a commercial lift, the vehicle 
manufacturer will need to ensure that the lift controls are installed 
in accordance with the lift manufacturer's instructions and in a 
location where the lift operator has an unobstructed view of the lift 
and it's occupants throughout the range of lift operation. The vehicle 
manufacturer will also need to place the lift operating instructions 
near the lift control for ready access by the lift operator.

X. Benefits of the Final Rule

    NHTSA has not been able to quantify the benefits associated with 
this rule because the NEISS database lacks adequate descriptive 
information that would allow us to pinpoint the probable cause of 
injury. However, there are a number of qualitative benefits associated 
with today's rule. As an initial matter, today's rule incorporates the 
most relevant requirements of existing standards and guidelines. 
Accordingly, manufacturers need only comply with standard to be assured 
that all applicable requirements are met. This one-stop approach 
provides a consistent level of safety for all lift users. Today's rule 
also establishes objective means for determining compliance with the 
new standards. In many cases the existing standards do not provide an 
objective means of measurement. Accordingly, lift manufacturers may be 
in a position where they are unsure whether their lift designs actually 
meet all the requirements referenced in a particular set of contract 
specifications. Today's rule removes that doubt. Additionally, based on 
the ATBCB's performance and design guidelines, NHTSA has developed 
objective test specifications for platform deflection, static loads, 
inner roll stops, outer barriers, and slip resistance. These 
specifications provide an additional level of safety not addressed by 
existing guidelines. Finally, by adopting the existing guidelines and 
recommended practices as a safety standard, NHTSA can order the recall 
of non-compliant lifts, thereby establishing a mechanism for removing 
unsafe platform lifts from the market.

XI. Costs of the Final Rule

    In the SNPRM, we estimated the costs of compliance with the 
proposed standard at less than $300 per lift. We believed the amount 
was so low because the lift requirements are all based on existing 
industry or governmental standards. However, Transport & Trolley 
estimated that the average cost of a lift today (not including 
installation) is about $3,000 for an active lift, and $7,000 for a 
passive lift. It then estimated that the cost to upgrade to the 
proposed standard would be approximately $1,000 per lift. It further 
estimated that the number of lifts affected by a new requirement would 
be between 15,000 and 20,000 lifts per year.
    We believe the total consumer cost of today's rule is between $3.1 
million and $4.7 million per year. This estimate is based on a cost of 
$213 per public-use vehicle and a cost of $147 per private use vehicle. 
A more thorough breakdown of the costs associated with compliance with 
the new standards may be found in the final regulatory evaluation 
supporting today's rule.

XII. Miscellaneous Issues

A. Axle Weight Limitations

    VanHool stated that the technical requirements would increase the 
weight of the lift and, consequently, the weight of the vehicle on 
which the lift is installed. It asked whether Federal axle weight 
limitations would be adjusted to take into account the increased weight 
of the lift. NHTSA does not regulate limitations on axle weight. These 
limitations are imposed by other state and Federal agencies, and we 
cannot relax those standards for them. We do note that the weight of 
any lift system, regardless of whether it meets the requirements set 
forth in today's rule, could have an effect on the vehicle's axle 
weight. To the extent vehicle operators are concerned that the lifts 
may require a relaxation of existing axle weight limitations, the 
operators should raise their concerns with the appropriate regulatory 
authority.

B. Definitions in the FMVSS No. 403

    As with the proposed regulatory text in the SNPRM, the regulatory 
text adopted today provides for a generic definition of ``motor home'' 
that applies to all FMVSS. Previously the term ``motor home'' was 
defined in each standard where such vehicles were specifically 
regulated. As a consequence, we developed two slightly different 
definitions. We have decided that this approach was potentially 
confusing. Additionally, we have no basis for using the term 
differently in different standards. Accordingly, we have added a 
definition of ``motor home'' to 49 CFR 571.3, which governs the 
definition of terms applicable to all safety standards. All standard 
specific definitions of motor homes have been removed from those 
standards.

C. Delayed Compliance With the ADA

    As noted earlier in this document, several over-the-road bus 
manufacturers and operators, represented by the ABA and the UMA, raised 
concerns about whether a new standard would delay full implementation 
of the ADA to over-the-road vehicle operators. The commenters were 
concerned that they would be unable to comply with the requirements 
because lift manufacturers would focus their attention on the 
development of NHTSA-compliant lifts and would be unable to provide bus 
operators or manufacturers with lifts

[[Page 79437]]

that meet the accessibility requirements issued by the Department of 
Transportation. They also voiced concerns that vehicle operators would 
simply not purchase lift-equipped vehicles until the lifts on those 
vehicles were NHTSA-compliant.
    Certainly, NHTSA has no desire to delay the implementation of the 
ADA accessibility requirements for over-the-road bus operators. 
However, we believe that such a delay is unwarranted. Nothing in 
today's rule is inconsistent with the Department's accessibility 
requirements.\13\ Accordingly, we have no reason to believe lift 
manufacturers will cease production of lifts that meet the 
accessibility requirements simply because some minor changes may be 
required to bring their lifts into full compliance with FMVSS No. 403. 
Additionally, the NHTSA requirements in FMVSS No. 403 only apply to 
lifts manufactured after the rule's effective date, and the 
requirements of FMVSS No. 404 only apply to lift equipped vehicles 
manufactured after that same date. While NHTSA has the authority to 
promulgate safety standards for commercial motor vehicles and equipment 
that are already in use,\14\ we are not exercising that authority for 
these standards. Thus, any lift-equipped over-the-road vehicle 
manufactured before the effective date of today's rule will not need to 
be certified as NHTSA compliant. If vehicle operators are concerned 
they may not take delivery of their vehicles until after the effective 
date of today's rule, they should specify in their purchase orders that 
the lifts should comply with NHTSA's requirements. In any case, the 
burden of compliance with NHTSA's standards rests on the lift and 
vehicle manufacturers and not on the operators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Static load test III measures the strength of the lifts 
design features differently than is contemplated in the 
accessibility requirements. This is because the accessibility 
requirements do not provide any performance criteria. We believe 
that a lift that can sustain the weight specified in static load 
test III will be able to meet the design requirements of the 
accessibility requirements.
    \14\ For further information on this authority, see 65 FR 41014 
(July 3, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

XIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under 
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory 
policies and procedures. This rulemaking is not economically 
significant. It is, however, classified as significant because of the 
public policy considerations entailed. Accordingly, the Office of 
Management and Budget has reviewed this rulemaking document under E.O. 
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' The rulemaking action has 
also been determined to be significant under the Department's 
regulatory policies and procedures. The costs and benefits associated 
with today's rule have been briefly discussed earlier in this document. 
For a more detailed analysis, please refer to the final regulatory 
evaluation supporting today's rule.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We have considered the effects of this rulemaking action under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) This action will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
businesses because it does not significantly exceed existing 
guidelines, contract specifications and industry recommended practices. 
As discussed in the final regulatory evaluation, the additional costs 
imposed by this rule will likely have a disproportionate impact on 
small businesses. However, small organizations and small governmental 
units will not be significantly affected by today's rule since the 
potential cost impacts associated with this rule should only slightly 
increase the price of new motor vehicles and of platform lifts. A 
fuller analysis of the impact of today's rule on small businesses, 
organizations, and governmental units may be found in the final 
regulatory evaluation.

C. National Environmental Policy Act

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

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

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

E. Unfunded Mandate Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to 
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects 
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to 
result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually 
(adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). Today's rule will not 
require the expenditure of resources. This is because the additional 
incremental costs imposed by the new standards are estimated at $3.1 
million to $4.7 million per year.

F. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

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

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless 
the collection displays a valid OMB control number. In the SNPRM, we 
sought comment on the estimated burden, in terms of labor and cost, to 
lift manufacturers. We received no comments on the estimated burden. 
This rule imposes new information collection requirements in that both 
new regulations would require certain disclosures to third parties.
    We are submitting a request for OMB clearance of the collection of 
information required under today's rules. These requirements and our 
estimates of the burden to lift and vehicle manufacturers are as 
follows:
    [sbull] 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.

    [sbull] Estimated burden to lift manufacturers to produce an insert 
for

[[Page 79438]]

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.

    [sbull] 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.

    [sbull] Cost to lift manufacturers to produce:

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

H. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

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

I. Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 
1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. Today's 
rule has been written with that directive in mind. We note that many of 
the requirements of today's rule are technical in nature. As such, they 
may require some understanding of technical terminology. We expect 
those parties directly affected by today's rule, i.e. platform lift 
manufacturers and vehicle manufacturers to be familiar with such 
terminology.

J. Executive Order 13045

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

K. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary 
consensus standards \15\ 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The equipment standard was drafted to include or exceed all 
existing government (FTA, ADA) and voluntary industry (e.g., SAE) 
standards. The table in Appendix A shows the source of each requirement 
in FMVSS No. 403. The reader should note that only three requirements 
were added by NHTSA that do not already exist in other standards. Of 
these three, two are based on a comment on the NPRM by a service 
transportation provider.

Appendix to Preamble

    Summary of Requirements in Proposed FMVSS 141, ``Platform Lifts for Accessible Motor Vehicles'' and Their
                                                   Antecedents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Requirement                                             Based on \16\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 static........  ADA, FTA, SAE.
Inner roll stop............................  FTA, ADA.
Handrails..................................  ADA, SAE.
Platform markings..........................  FTA.

[[Page 79439]]

 
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 to the SNPRM.........................  No comparable existing provision.
Owner's manual insert......................  No comparable existing provision.
Installation instruction insert............  SAE.
Static Load Test I, Working Load, lift must  FTA, ADA, SAE.
 operate normally with 600 pound load.
Static Load Test II, Proof Load, lift must   FTA.
 sustain a load of 1800 lbs and operate
 normally after the load is removed. Safety
 Factor = 3.
Static Load Test III, Ultimate Load, lift    SAE.
 must sustain a load of 2400 lbs without
 failure, but does not need to operate
 after removal. SF=4.
Environmental resistance for externally      SAE (based on FMVSS 209).
 mounted lifts.
Fatigue Endurance..........................  FTA, SAE
Operations Counter.........................  FTA (optional).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \16\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

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


    In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 571 is amended as 
follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for part 571 of title 49 continues to 
read as follows:

    Authority: 149 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166 delegation 
of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.


    2. Section 571.3 is amended by adding a definition of ``motor 
home'' to section 571.3(b), in alphabetical order, as follows:


Sec.  571.3  Definitions

* * * * *
    (b) Other definitions. As used in this chapter --
* * * * *
    Motor home means a multi-purpose vehicle with motive power that is 
designed to provide temporary residential accommodations, as evidenced 
by the presence of at least four of the following facilities: Cooking; 
refrigeration or ice box; self-contained toilet; heating and/or air 
conditioning; a potable water supply system including a faucet and a 
sink; and a separate 110-125 volt electrical power supply and/or an LP 
gas supply.
* * * * *

    3. Section 571.105 is amended by removing the definition of motor 
home contained in Sec.  571.105 S4, Definitions.

    4. Section 571.201 is amended by removing the definition of motor 
home contained in Sec.  571.201 S3, Definitions.

    5. Section 571.205 is amended by removing the definition of motor 
home contained in Sec.  571.205 S4, Definitions.

    6. Section 571.208 is amended by removing and reserving Sec.  
571.208 S4.2.4.1(a).

    7. Section 571.403 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  571.403  Standard No. 403; 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 that provides 
a transitional surface between the platform surface and the surface of 
the vehicle floor within the platform threshold area.
    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 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 one of the two loading positions. With respect to a 
wheelchair retention device or inner roll stop, the term means the 
movement of the device or stop to a fully functional position intended 
to prevent a passenger from disembarking the platform or being pinched 
between the platform and vehicle.
    Floor reference plane means the plane 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 platform 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.
    Inner roll-stop means a device that is located at the edge of the 
platform that a passenger or mobility aid must traverse when entering 
and exiting the

[[Page 79440]]

platform from the vehicle floor loading position and that is designed 
to retain mobility aids on the platform surface during the range of 
passenger operation.
    Lift reference plane means the plane that is defined by two 
orthogonal axes passing through the geometric center of the platform 
surface of a platform lift. 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 the lift. The two 
loading positions are at vehicle floor and ground level.
    Longitudinal vehicle reference plane means the plane that is 
perpendicular to the floor reference plane and contains the 
longitudinal axis of the vehicle when the vehicle body is level and 
moves along with the vehicle body in response to the loading of the 
vehicle suspension. (See figure 1.)
    Outer barrier is a particular wheelchair retention device that is 
located on the edge of the platform, is traversed during ground level 
loading and unloading, and is designed to retain wheelchairs on the 
platform surface during the range of passenger operation.
    Platform means that portion of a platform lift on which the 
mobility aid or passenger rests while being raised or lowered.
    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 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 that lies 
on this area must be considered part of that area.
    Private use lift means a platform lift certified to the 
requirements for private use lifts and requirements in this standard 
for all lifts.
    Public use lift means a platform lift certified to the requirements 
for public use lifts and requirements in this standard for all lifts.
    Range of passenger operation means the portion of the lift cycle 
during which the platform is at or between the vehicle floor and ground 
level loading positions excluding any stow and deploy operations.
    Standard test load means a static load or mass centered on the test 
pallet such that the total combined mass for public-use lifts shall be 
272 kg (600 lb), and the total combined mass for private-use lifts 
shall be the lift manufacturer's stated rated load or 181 kg (400 lb), 
whichever is greater.
    Stow means with respect to a platform, its movement from a position 
within the range of passenger operation to the position maintained 
during normal vehicle travel; and, with respect to a wheelchair 
retention device, bridging device, or inner-roll stop, its movement 
from a fully functional position to a position intended to allow a 
passenger to embark or disembark the platform.
    Test pallet means a platform on which required test loads are 
placed for handling and moving.
    Transverse vehicle reference plane means the plane that is 
perpendicular to the floor reference plane and contains the transverse 
axis of the vehicle when the vehicle body is level and that moves along 
with the vehicle body in response to the loading of the vehicle 
suspension. (See figure 1.)
    Wheelchair retention device means a device designed to prevent 
wheelchairs from leaving the edge of the platform used for ground level 
loading and unloading during the range of passenger operation.
    S5. Incorporation by reference.
    S5.1 The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice 
J578, revised June 1995, ``Color Specification'' (SAE J578, rev. June 
95) is hereby incorporated into S6.1.4 by reference.
    S5.2 The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice 
J211/1, revised March 1995 ``Instrumentation for Impact Test--Part 1 --
Electronic Instrumentation'' (SAE J211/1, rev. Mar 95) is hereby 
incorporated into S6.2.3 by reference.
    S5.3 The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) 
Recommended Practice B456-95 ``Standard Specification for 
Electrodeposited Coatings of Copper Plus Nickel Plus Chromium and 
Nickel Plus Chromium'' (ASTM B456-95) is hereby incorporated into 
S6.3.1 by reference.
    S5.4 The Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology 
Society of North America (ANSI/RESNA) Standard WC/Vol.1-1998 Section 
13, ``Determination of Coefficient of Friction of Test Surfaces'' 
(ANSI/RESNA WC/Vol.1--1998, sec. 13) is hereby incorporated into S7.2.2 
by reference.
    S5.5 The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) 
Recommended Practice B117-97 ``Standard Practice for Operating Salt 
Spray (Fog) Apparatus'' (ASTM B117-97) is hereby incorporated into 
S7.3.2 by reference.
    S5.6 The Director of the Federal Register approved the materials 
incorporated by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 
part 51 (See Sec.  571.5 of this part). Copies of the materials may be 
inspected at NHTSA's Technical Reference Library, 400 Seventh Street 
SW., Room 5109, Washington, DC or at the Office of the Federal 
Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
    S5.6.1 The SAE materials referred to in S5.1 and S5.2 are available 
from the Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 400 Commonwealth Drive, 
Warrendale, PA. 15096.
    S5.6.2 The ASTM materials referred to in S5.3 and S5.5 are 
available from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, 
West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
    S5.6.3 The ANSI/RESNA materials referred to in S5.4 are available 
from RESNA, 1700 North Moore St., Suite 1540, Arlington, VA 22209-1903.
    S6. Requirements.
    (a) Each platform lift must comply with the requirements for 
private use lifts or public use lifts and with the requirements for all 
lifts.
    (b) Each public use lift must
    (1) Comply with the requirements for public use lifts and with the 
requirements for all lifts.
    (2) Bear a label with the words ``DOT--Public Use Lift'' as 
certification of compliance with the requirements specified in 
paragraph S6(b)(1).
    (c) Each private use lift must
    (1) Comply with the requirements for private use lifts and with the 
requirements for all lifts.
    (2) Bear a label with the words ``DOT--Private Use Lift'' as 
certification of compliance with the requirements specified in 
S6(c)(1).
    (d) Platform lifts suitable for installation on buses, school 
buses, and MPVs other than motor homes with a GVWR greater than 4,536 
kg (10,000 lb.), except motor homes, must be certified by the 
manufacturer as meeting the requirements for public use lifts. For 
platform lifts suitable for installation on all other vehicles, the 
manufacturer may select the option of certifying compliance with either 
the public use

[[Page 79441]]

lift requirements or the private use lift requirements of this standard 
at the time it certifies the vehicle and may not thereafter select a 
different option for the vehicle.
    (e) For all lifts, where a range of values is specified, the 
equipment must meet the requirements at all points within the range.
    (f) The test procedures in S7 are used to determine compliance with 
all requirements, except S6.6, S6.7.5, S6.12 and S6.13.
    S6.1 Threshold warning signal.
    S6.1.1 Except when the platform lift is operated manually in backup 
mode as required by S6.9, the lift must meet the requirements of S6.1.2 
and S6.1.3. The lift is tested in accordance with S7.4 to determine 
compliance with this section.
    S6.1.2. Private-use lifts: 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 platform threshold area and portions of a passenger's body or 
mobility aid is on the platform threshold area defined in S4 when 
tested in accordance with S7.4.
    S6.1.3 Public-use lifts: A visual and audible warning must activate 
if the platform is more than 25 mm (1 inch) below the platform 
threshold area and portions of a passenger's body or mobility aid is on 
the platform threshold area defined in S4 when tested in accordance 
with S7.4.
    S6.1.4 The visual warning required by S6.1.2 and S6.1.3 must be a 
flashing red beacon as defined in SAE J578, June 95, must have a 
minimum intensity of 20 candela, a frequency from 1 to 2 Hz, and must 
be installed such that it does not require more than +/- 15 degrees 
side-to-side head rotation as viewed by a passenger backing onto the 
platform from the interior of the vehicle. If a lift has only a visual 
alarm and the lift manufacturer specifies that the passenger must load 
onto the platform in a forward direction from the vehicle floor, the 
visual alarm must be located such that it does not require more than +/
- 15 degrees side-to-side head rotation as viewed by a passenger 
traversing forward onto the platform.
    S6.1.5 The audible warning required by S6.1.2 and S6.1.3 must be a 
minimum of 85 dBA between 500 and 3000 Hz.
    S6.1.6 The intensity of the visual or audible warnings required by 
S6.1.2 and S6.1.3 is measured at the location 914 mm (3 ft) above the 
center of the platform threshold area. (See figure 2.)
    S6.2 Platform lift operational requirements.
    S6.2.1 General. Throughout the range of passenger operation and 
during the lift operations specified in S7.6, the platform lift must 
meet the requirements of S6.2.2 through S6.2.4. These requirements must 
be satisfied both with and without a standard load on the lift 
platform, except for S6.2.2.2, which must be satisfied without any 
load.
    S6.2.2 Maximum platform velocity.
    S6.2.2.1 Throughout the range of passenger operation specified in 
S7.9.4 through S7.9.7, both the vertical and horizontal velocity of the 
platform must be less than or equal to 152 mm (6 inches) per second 
when measured at the geometric center of the platform when the platform 
is unloaded and at the geometric center of the top, horizontal surface 
of the standard load specified in S7.1.1 when the platform is loaded.
    S6.2.2.2 During the stow and deploy operations specified in S7.9.3 
and S7.9.8, both the vertical and horizontal velocity of any portion of 
the platform must be less than or equal to 305 mm (12 inches) per 
second.
    S6.2.3 Maximum platform acceleration. Throughout the range of 
passenger operation specified in S7.9.4 through S7.9.7, both the 
horizontal and vertical acceleration of the platform must be less than 
or equal to 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 Recommended Practice J211/1, rev. Mar 95, with 
FH = 3 Hz and FN = 5 Hz. The accelerometer is 
located at the geometric center of the platform and is mounted directly 
on the platform when it is unloaded and on the geometric center of the 
top, horizontal surface of the standard load specified in S7.1.1 when 
the platform is loaded.
    S6.2.4 Maximum noise level of public use lifts. Except as provided 
in S6.1.5, throughout the range of passenger operation specified in 
S7.9.4 through S7.9.7, the noise level of a public use lift may not 
exceed 80 dBa as measured at any lift operator's position designated by 
the platform lift manufacturer for the intended vehicle and in the area 
on the lift defined in S6.4.2.1 and S6.4.2.2. Lift operator position 
measurements are taken at the vertical centerline of the control panel 
30.5 cm (12 in) out from the face of the control panel. In the case of 
a lift with a pendant control, measurement is taken at the vertical 
centerline of the control panel 30.5 cm (12 in) out from the face of 
the control panel while the control panel is in its stowed or stored 
position. For the lift operator positions outside of the vehicle, 
measurements are taken at the intersection of a horizontal plane 157 cm 
(62 in) above the ground and the vertical centerline of the face of the 
control panel after it has been extended 30.5 cm (12 in) out from the 
face of the control panel.
    S6.3 Environmental resistance.
    S6.3.1 Internally mounted platform lifts. On platform lifts and 
their components internal to the occupant compartment of the vehicle 
when stowed, attachment hardware must be free of ferrous corrosion on 
significant surfaces except for permissible ferrous corrosion, as 
defined in FMVSS No. 209, at peripheral surface edges or edges of holes 
on under-floor reinforcing plates and washers after being subjected to 
the conditions specified in S7.3. Alternatively, such hardware must be 
protected against corrosion by an electrodeposited coating of nickel, 
or copper and nickel with at least a service condition number of SC2, 
and other attachment hardware must be protected by an electrodeposited 
coating of nickel, or copper and nickel with a service condition number 
of SC1, in accordance with ASTM B456-95, but such hardware may not be 
racked for electroplating in locations subjected to maximum stress. The 
lift must be accompanied by all attachment hardware necessary for its 
installation on a vehicle.
    S6.3.2 Externally mounted platform lifts. On platform lifts and 
their components external to the occupant compartment of the vehicle 
when stowed, the lift and its components must be free of ferrous 
corrosion on significant surfaces except for permissible ferrous 
corrosion, as defined in FMVSS No. 209, at peripheral surface edges and 
edges of holes and continue to function properly after being subjected 
to the conditions specified in S7.3. The lift must be accompanied by 
all attachment hardware necessary for its installation on a vehicle.
    S6.4 Platform requirements.
    S6.4.1 General. Throughout the range of passenger operations and 
during the platform lift operations specified in S7.9.4 through S7.9.7, 
the platform lift must meet the requirements of S6.4.2 through S6.4.12. 
The requirements of S6.4.2 through S6.4.6, S6.4.7.4, S6.4.9.4, 
S6.4.9.5, S6.4.9.6, and S6.4.9.8 must be satisfied both with and 
without a standard load on the lift platform
    S6.4.2 Unobstructed platform operating volume.
    S6.4.2.1 Public use lifts. For public use lifts, the minimum 
platform operating volume is the sum of an upper part and a lower part 
(see Figure 3). The lower part is a rectangular solid whose

[[Page 79442]]

base is 725 mm (28.5 in) wide by the length of the platform surface, 
whose height is 50 mm (2 in), 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 1). The upper part is a rectangular solid whose base is 760 mm 
(30 in) by 1,220 mm (48 in) long, whose height is 711 mm (28 in), and 
whose base is tangent to the top surface of the lower rectangular solid 
(see Figure 3). The centroids of both the upper and lower parts 
coincide with the vertical centroidal axis of the platform reference 
plane (see Figure 1).
    S6.4.2.2 Private use lifts. For private use lifts, the platform 
operating volume is as specified by the lift manufacturer and 
identified in the lift insert to the vehicle owner's manual.
    S6.4.3 Platform surface protrusions.
    S6.4.3.1 Public use lifts. For public use lifts, except as required 
for deployment of the wheelchair retention device and inner roll stop, 
throughout the range of passenger operation, the platform surface may 
not have protrusions which rise more than 6.5 mm (0.25 in) above the 
platform surface, measured perpendicular to the platform surface by a 
device with its base centered between 50-100 mm (2-4 in) from the 
protrusion. Any cross-sectional dimension of the base of the protrusion 
measurement device must be greater than or equal to 25mm (1 in) and 
less than or equal to 50 mm (2 in).
    S6.4.3.2 Private use lifts. For private use lifts, except as 
required for deployment of the wheelchair retention device and inner 
roll stop, the platform surface may not have protrusions which rise 
more than 13 mm (0.5 in) above the platform surface, measured 
perpendicular to the platform surface by a device with its base 
centered between 50-100 mm (2-4 in) from the protrusion. All portions 
of the sides of a protrusion that are between 6.5 mm (0.25 in) and 13 
mm (0.5 in) 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. Any cross-sectional dimension of the base of the protrusion 
measurement device must be greater than or equal to 25mm (1 in) and 
less than or equal to 50 mm (2 in).
    S6.4.4 Gaps, transitions and openings.
    S6.4.4.1 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 not be greater than 6.5 mm (0.25 in). When the lift is at 
the vehicle level loading position, any vertical surface transition 
measured perpendicular to the platform threshold area over which a 
passenger may traverse to enter or exit the platform, may not be 
greater than 6.5 mm (0.25 in).
    S6.4.4.2 When the platform lift is at the ground or vehicle level 
loading position, the slope of any surface over which a passenger may 
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 in) 
and 13 mm (0.5 in), and 1:8 on the portion of the rise between 13 mm 
(0.5 in) and 75 mm (3 in). The rise of any sloped surface may not be 
greater than 75 mm (3 inches). When the lift is at the ground level 
loading position, measurements are made perpendicular to the ground. 
When the lift is at the vehicle level loading position, measurements 
are made perpendicular to the platform threshold area.
    S6.4.4.3 When the inner roll stop or any outer barrier is deployed, 
any gap between the inner roll stop and lift platform and any gap 
between the outer barrier and lift platform must prevent passage of the 
clearance test block specified in S7.1.3 when its long axis is held 
perpendicular to the platform reference plane.
    S6.4.4.4 When the platform is at the vehicle floor or ground level 
loading position, any horizontal gap over which a passenger may 
traverse to enter or exit the platform must prevent passage of a 13 mm 
(0.5 inch) diameter sphere.
    S6.4.4.5 Any opening in that portion of the platform surface that 
coincides with the unobstructed platform operating volume described in 
S6.4.2 must prevent passage of a 19 mm (0.75 inch) diameter sphere.
    S6.4.4.6 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.
    S6.4.5 Platform deflection. The angle of the platform, when 
stationary, relative to the vehicle floor reference plane may not be 
more than 1.8 degrees with no load on the platform. The angle of the 
platform loaded with a standard load, when stationary, may not deflect 
more than 3 degrees from its unloaded position. The angles are measured 
between axes perpendicular to the vehicle floor and platform reference 
planes.
    S6.4.6 Edge guards.
    S6.4.6.1 The platform lift must have edge guards that extend 
continuously along each side of the lift platform to within 75 mm (3 
inches) of the edge of the platform that is traversed while entering 
and exiting the platform from the ground level loading position. The 
edge guards must be parallel to the direction of wheelchair movement 
during loading and unloading.
    S6.4.6.2 Edge guards that move with the platform must have vertical 
sides facing the platform surface and a minimum height of 38 mm (1.5 
inches), measured vertically from the platform surface.
    S6.4.6.3 Except whenever any part of the platform surface is below 
a horizontal plane 75 mm (3 inches) above the ground, edge guards must 
be deployed throughout the range of passenger operation.
    S6.4.7 Wheelchair retention.
    S6.4.7.1 Impact I. Except for platform lifts designed so that 
platform loading takes place wholly over the vehicle floor, the lift 
must have a means of retaining the test device specified in S7.1.2. 
After impact, the test device must remain upright with all of its 
wheels on the platform surface throughout its range of passenger 
operation, except as provided in S6.4.7.4. The lift is tested in 
accordance with S7.7 to determine compliance with this section.
    S6.4.7.2 Impact II. For platform lifts designed so that platform 
loading takes place wholly over the vehicle floor, the lift must have a 
means of retaining the test device specified in S7.1.2. After impact, 
the test device must remain upright with all of its wheels on the 
platform surface, throughout the range of passenger operation, except 
as provided in S6.4.7.4. The lift is tested in accordance with S7.7 to 
determine compliance with this section.
    S6.4.7.3 Overload. The deployed wheelchair retention device(s) must 
be capable of sustaining 7,117 N (1,600 lb force) when tested in 
accordance with S7.13. No separation, fracture, or breakage of the 
wheelchair retention device may occur as a result of conducting the 
test in S7.13.
    S6.4.7.4 Deployment. Except whenever any part of the platform 
surface is below a horizontal plane 75 mm (3 in) above the ground, the 
wheelchair retention device(s) must be deployed throughout the range of 
passenger operation.
    S6.4.8 Inner roll stop.

[[Page 79443]]

    S6.4.8.1 Public use lifts. Public use lifts must have an inner roll 
stop that meets the requirements of S6.4.8.3.
    S6.4.8.2 Private use lifts. Private use lifts must:
    (a) Have an inner roll stop that meets the requirements of 
S6.4.8.3; or
    (b) Have operating instructions near the lift controls and in the 
vehicle owner's manual, as specified in S6.7.8 and S6.12.4.3, that 
contain a warning that wheelchairs should back onto the platform when 
entering from the ground.
    S6.4.8.3 Requirements. When tested in accordance with S7.8, 
platform lifts must have an inner roll stop that provides a means that 
prevents:
    (a) The front wheels of the test device specified in S7.1.2 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 S7.1.2 from being 
contacted simultaneously with a portion of the lift platform and any 
other structure, throughout the lift's range of passenger operation.
    S6.4.9 Handrails.
    S6.4.9.1 Public use lifts: Public use lifts must have a handrail 
located on each side of the lift that meets the requirements of 
S6.4.9.3 through S6.4.9.9.
    S6.4.9.2 Private use lifts: Private use lifts are not required to 
be equipped with handrails. Private use lifts that are equipped with 
handrails must meet the requirement of S6.4.9.3 through S6.4.9.9.
    S6.4.9.3 The graspable portion of each handrail may not be less 
than 762 mm (30 inches) and more than 965 mm (38 inches) above the 
platform surface, measured vertically.
    S6.4.9.4 The cross section of the graspable portion of each 
handrail may not be less than 31.5 mm (1.25 inches) and more than 38 mm 
(1.5 inches) in diameter or width, and may not have less than a 3.2 mm 
(0.125 inch) radii on any corner.
    S6.4.9.5 The vertical projection of the graspable portion of each 
handrail must intersect two planes that are perpendicular to the 
platform reference plane and to the direction of travel of a wheelchair 
on the lift when entering or exiting the platform, and are 203 mm (8 
inches) apart.
    S6.4.9.6 The handrails must move such that the position of the 
handrails relative to the platform surface does not change.
    S6.4.9.7 When tested in accordance with S7.12.1, 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 inch) of 
displacement relative to the platform surface. After removal of the 
load, the handrail must exhibit no permanent deformation.
    S6.4.9.8 When tested in accordance with S7.12.1, there must be at 
least 38 mm (1.5 inches) of clearance between each handrail and any 
portion of the vehicle, throughout the range of passenger operation.
    S6.4.9.9 When tested in accordance with S7.12.2, each handrail must 
withstand 1,112 N (250 lb/f) applied at any point and in any direction 
on the handrail without sustaining any failure, such as cracking, 
separation, fracture, or more than 102 mm (4 inches) of displacement of 
any point on the handrails relative to the platform surface.
    S6.4.10 Platform markings on public use lifts. 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 on a public use lift must be 
outlined. The outlines must be at least 25 mm (1 in) 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 luminance 
of the platform surface of 323 lm/m2 (30 lumen/sqft).

    S6.4.11 Platform lighting on public use lifts. Public use lifts 
must have a light or a set of lights that provide at least 54 lm/
m2 (5 lm/sqft) of luminance on all portions of the surface 
of the platform, throughout the range of passenger operation. The 
luminance measured on all portions of the surface of the passenger 
unloading ramp at ground level must be at least 11 lm/m2 (1 
lm/sqft).
    S6.4.12 Platform slip resistance. When tested in accordance with 
S7.2, the coefficient of friction, in any direction, of any part of a 
wet platform surface may not be less than 0.65.
    S6.5 Structural integrity.
    S6.5.1 Fatigue endurance.
    S6.5.1.1 Public use lifts. Public use lifts must remain operable 
when operated through a total of 15,600 cycles: 7,800 unloaded Raise/
Lower and Stow/Deploy operations and 7,800 loaded Raise/Lower 
operations as specified in S7.10. No separation, fracture, or breakage 
of any vehicle or lift component may occur as a result of conducting 
the fatigue test in S7.10.
    S6.5.1.2 Private use lifts. Private use lifts must remain operable 
when operated through a total of 4,400 cycles: 2,200 unloaded Raise/
Lower and Stow/Deploy operations and 2,200 loaded Raise/Lower 
operations as specified in S7.10. No separation, fracture, or breakage 
of any vehicle or lift component may occur as a result of conducting 
the fatigue test in S7.10.
    S6.5.2 Proof load. The platform lift must be capable of holding 
three times the standard load, as specified in S7.11, without 
separation, fracture, or breakage of any vehicle or lift component. 
After the test, the lift must pass Static Load Test I as specified in 
S7.9.
    S6.5.3 Ultimate load. The platform lift must be capable of holding 
four times the standard load, as specified in S7.14, without 
separation, fracture, or breakage of the platform, supporting 
structure, or lifting mechanism.
    S6.6 Platform free fall limits. In the event of any single-point 
failure of systems for raising, lowering or supporting the platform, 
any portion of the platform, loaded as specified in S7.1.1, may not 
fall vertically faster than 305 mm (12 in) 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.
    S6.7 Control systems.
    S6.7.1 The platform lift must meet the requirements of S6.7.2 
through S6.7.8 and, when operated by means of the control system 
specified in S6.7.2, must perform the lift operations specified in 
S7.9.
    S6.7.2 The platform lift system must have a control system that 
performs not less than the following functions:
    S6.7.2.1 Enables and disables the lift control system. This 
function must be identified as ``Power'' if located on the control. The 
Power function must have two states: ``On'' and ``Off''. The ``On'' 
state must allow platform lift operation. When the Power function is in 
the ``On'' state, an indicator light on the controls must illuminate. 
The ``Off'' state must prevent lift operation and must turn off the 
indicator light. Verification with this requirement is made throughout 
the lift operations specified in S7.9.3 through S7.9.8.
    S6.7.2.2 Moves the lift from a stowed position to one of the two 
loading positions. This function must be identified as ``Deploy'' or 
``Unfold'' on the control.
    S6.7.2.3 Lowers the lift platform. This function must be identified 
as ``Down'' or ``Lower'' on the control.

[[Page 79444]]

    S6.7.2.4 Raises the lift platform. This function must be identified 
as ``Up'' or ``Raise'' on the control.
    S6.7.2.5 Moves the lift from a position within the range of 
passenger operation to a stowed position. This function must be 
identified as ``Stow'' or ``Fold'' on the control.
    S6.7.3 Except for the Power function described in S6.7.2.1, the 
functions specified in S6.7.2 must activate in a momentary fashion, by 
one switch or by a combination of switches. Verification with this 
requirement is made throughout the lift operations specified in S7.9.3 
through S7.9.8.
    S6.7.4 Except for the Power function described in S6.7.2.1, the 
control system specified in S6.7.2 must prevent the simultaneous 
performance of more than one function. Verification with this 
requirement is made throughout the lift operations specified in S7.9.3 
through S7.9.8.
    S6.7.5 Any single-point failure in the control system may not 
prevent the operation of any of the interlocks as specified in S6.10
    S6.7.6 Identification of operating functions.
    S6.7.6.1 Each operating function of each platform lift control must 
be identified with characters that are at least 2.5 mm (0.1 in) in 
height.
    S6.7.6.2 Public use lifts: Public use lifts must have characters 
that are illuminated in accordance with S5.3 of Standard No. 101, when 
the vehicle's headlights are illuminated.
    S6.7.7 Control location for public use lifts: In public use lifts, 
except for the backup operation specified in S6.9, all controls must be 
positioned together and in a location such that a person facing the 
controls has a direct, unobstructed view of the platform lift passenger 
and the passenger's mobility aid, if applicable. Verification with this 
requirement is made throughout the lift operations specified in S7.9.3 
through S7.9.8. Additional controls may be positioned in other 
locations.
    S6.7.8 Operating instructions: Simple instructions regarding the 
platform lift operating procedures, including backup operations as 
specified by S6.9, must:
    S6.7.8.1 Be located near the controls.
    S6.7.8.2 Have characters with a minimum height of 2.5 mm (0.1 in) 
and written in English.
    S6.7.8.3  Public use lifts: Include the statement ``DOT--Public Use 
Lift''.
    S6.7.8.4 Private use lifts: Include the statement ``DOT--Private 
Use Lift'', the manufacturer's rated load for the lift, and, if 
applicable, instructions indicating that the wheelchair occupant must 
back onto the lift when loading from the ground.
    S6.8 Jacking prevention.
    S6.8.1 Except when the platform lift is operated in backup mode as 
required by S6.9, throughout the lift operations specified in S7.9.4 
and S7.9.7, the lift system must meet the requirements of S6.8.2, both 
with and without a standard load on the lift.
    S6.8.2 The control system or platform lift design must prevent the 
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.
    S6.9 Backup operation.
    S6.9.1 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 lift operation or a lift malfunction, deploy the lift, 
lower the loaded platform to the ground level loading position, raise 
the unloaded platform to the vehicle floor loading position, and stow 
the lift. 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 insert, as specified in S6.7.8 and S6.12.2, must contain 
information on manual backup operation which must include manual 
operation of the wheelchair retention device and inner roll stop during 
backup operation of the lift.
    S6.10 Interlocks.
    S6.10.1 Except when the platform lift is operated in backup mode as 
required by S6.9, the requirements of S6.10.2 must be met, both with 
and without a standard load on the lift.
    S6.10.2 The platform lift system must have interlocks or operate in 
such a way as to prevent:
    S6.10.2.1 Forward or rearward mobility of the vehicle unless the 
platform lift is stowed. The design of this system must be such that it 
discourages accidental release and does not affect vehicle movement 
when the lift is stowed until the vehicle is stopped and the lift 
deployed. Verification with this requirement is made throughout the 
lift operations specified in S7.9.2 and S7.9.3.
    S6.10.2.2 Operation of the platform lift from the stowed position 
until forward and rearward mobility of the vehicle is inhibited, by 
means of placing the transmission in park or placing the transmission 
in neutral and actuating the parking brake or the vehicle service 
brakes by means other than the operator depressing the vehicle's 
service brake pedal. Verification with this requirement is made 
throughout the lift operations specified in S7.9.2 and S7.9.3.
    S6.10.2.3 Except for platform lifts designed to be occupied while 
stowed, stowing of the platform lift when occupied by portions of a 
passenger's body, and/or a mobility aid. Verification with this 
requirement is made throughout the lift operations specified in S7.9.7 
and S7.9.8, and using the test device specified in S7.1.4 when the 
device is placed on its narrowest side on any portion of and within the 
boundaries of the area of the platform that coincides with the 
unobstructed platform operating volume described in S6.4.2.
    S6.10.2.4 Movement of the platform up or down unless the inner roll 
stop required to comply with S6.4.8 is deployed. When the platform 
reaches a level where the inner roll stop is designed to deploy, the 
platform must stop unless the inner roll stop has deployed. 
Verification with this requirement is made by performing the test 
procedure specified in S7.6.
    S6.10.2.5 Movement of the platform up or down, throughout the range 
of passenger operation, when the platform surface is above a horizontal 
plane 75 mm (3 in) above the ground level loading position, unless the 
wheelchair retention device required to comply with S6.4.7 is deployed 
throughout the range of passenger operations. Verification of 
compliance is made using the test procedure specified in S 7.5.
    S6.10.2.6 In the case of a platform lift that is equipped with an 
outer barrier, deployment of the outer barrier, when it is occupied by 
portions of a passenger's body or mobility aid throughout the lift 
operations. Verification of compliance is made using the test procedure 
specified in S 7.5.
    S6.10.2.7 Deployment of any inner roll stop required to comply with 
S6.4.8, when the inner roll stop is occupied by portions of a 
passenger's body or mobility aid throughout the lift operations. 
Verification of compliance with this requirement uses the test 
procedure specified in S7.6.
    S6.11 Operations counter. The platform lift must have an operation 
or cycle counter that records each complete Up/Down (Raise/Lower) 
operation throughout the range of passenger operation. Determination of 
compliance with this requirement is made during the lift operations 
specified in S7.9.4 and S7.9.5.
    S6.12 Vehicle owner's manual insert. The lift manufacturer must 
provide with the lift, inserts for the

[[Page 79445]]

vehicle owner's manual that provide specific information about the 
platform lift. The vehicle owner's manual insert must be written in 
English and must include:
    S6.12.1 A maintenance schedule that includes maintenance 
requirements that have, at a minimum, some dependency on the number of 
cycles on the operations counter specified in S6.11.
    S6.12.2 Instructions regarding the platform lift operating 
procedures, including backup operations, as specified by S6.9.
    S6.12.3 Public use lifts: In addition to meeting the requirements 
of S6.12.1 and S6.12.2, the owner's manual insert for public use lifts 
must also include:
    S6.12.3.1 The statement ``DOT--Public Use Lift'' on the front cover 
of the vehicle owner's manual insert; and
    S6.12.3.2 The statement ``DOT--Public Use Lift'' verifies that this 
platform lift meets the ``public use lift '' requirements of FMVSS No. 
403. This lift may be installed on all vehicles appropriate for the 
size and weight of the lift, but must be installed on buses, school 
buses, and multi-purpose passenger vehicles other than motor homes with 
a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) that exceeds 4,536 kg (10,000 
lb).''
    S6.12.4 Private use lifts: In addition to meeting the requirements 
of S6.12.1 and S6.12.2, the owner's manual insert for private use lifts 
must also include:
    S6.12.4.1 The dimensions that constitute the unobstructed platform 
operating volume;
    S6.12.4.2 The manufacturer's rated load for the lift;
    S6.12.4.3 Information on whether a wheelchair user must back onto 
the platform from the ground level loading position due to the absence 
of an inner roll stop;
    S6.12.4.4 The statement ``DOT-Private Use Lift'' on the front cover 
of the vehicle owner's manual insert; and
    S6.12.4.5 The statement ``DOT-Private Use Lift verifies that this 
platform lift meets only the ``private use lift'' requirements of FMVSS 
No. 403. This lift may be installed on all vehicles appropriate for the 
size and weight of the lift, except for buses, school buses, and multi-
purpose passenger vehicles other than motor homes with a gross vehicle 
weight rating (GVWR) that exceeds (4,536 kg) 10,000 lb.''
    S6.13 Installation instructions. The manufacturer of a platform 
lift must include installation instructions with each lift. Information 
must be included in the installation instructions that identifies:
    S6.13.1 The vehicles on which the lift is designed to be installed. 
Vehicles may be identified by listing the make, model, and year of the 
vehicles for which the lift is suitable, or by specifying the design 
elements that would make a vehicle an appropriate host for the 
particular lift, and for which the platform lift manufacturer has 
certified compliance.
    S6.13.2 Procedures for operational checks that the vehicle 
manufacturer must perform to verify that the lift is fully operational. 
Such checks include, but are not limited to, platform lighting, the 
threshold-warning signal, and interlocks, including those that 
interface with vehicle systems.
    S6.13.3 Any informational material or labels that must be placed on 
or in the vehicle in order to comply with the requirements of this 
standard. Labels must be of a permanent nature that can withstand the 
elements of the outside environment.
    S6.13.4 Public use lifts: In addition to meeting the requirements 
of S6.13.1 through S6.13.3, the installation instructions for public 
use lifts must also include, on the front cover of the instructions, 
the statement ``DOT-Public Use Lift''.
    S6.13.5 Private use lifts: In addition to meeting the requirements 
of S6.13.1 through S6.13.3, the installation instructions for private 
use lifts must also include, on the front cover of the instructions, 
the manufacturer's rated load for the lift and the statement ``DOT-
Private Use Lift''.
    S7. Test conditions and procedures. Each platform lift must be 
capable of meeting all of the tests specified in this standard, both 
separately, and in the sequence specified in this section. The tests 
specified in S7.8 through S7.11 are performed on a single lift and 
vehicle combination. The tests specified in S7.2 through S7.7, and 
S7.12 through S7.14 may be performed with the same lift installed on a 
test jig rather than on a vehicle. Certification tests of requirements 
in S6.1 through S6.11 may be performed on a single lift and vehicle 
combination, except for the requirements of S6.5.3. Attachment hardware 
may be replaced if damaged by removal and reinstallation of the lift 
between a test jig and vehicle.
    S7.1 Test devices.
    S7.1.1 Test pallet and load. The surface of the test pallet that 
rests on the platform used for the tests specified in S7.6 through S7.8 
and S7.11 has sides that measure between 660 mm (26 in) and 686 mm (27 
in). For the tests specified in S7.6 and S7.7, the test pallet is made 
of a rectangular steel plate of uniform thickness and the load that 
rests on the test pallet is made of rectangular steel plate(s) of 
uniform thickness and sides that measure between 533 mm (21 in) and 686 
mm (27 in). The standard test load that rests on the pallet is defined 
in S4.
    S7.1.2 Wheelchair test device. The test device is an unloaded power 
wheelchair whose size is appropriate for a 95th percentile male and 
that has the dimensions, configuration and components described in 
S7.1.2.1 through S7.1.2.10. If the dimension in S7.1.2.9 is measured 
for a particular wheelchair by determining its tipping angle, the 
batteries are prevented from moving from their original position.
    S7.1.2.1 a cross-braced steel frame;
    S7.1.2.2 a sling seat integrated in the frame;
    S7.1.2.3 a belt drive;
    S7.1.2.4 detachable footrests, with the lowest point of the 
footrest adjustable in a range not less than 25 mm (1 in) to 123 mm (5 
in) from the ground;
    S7.1.2.5 two pneumatic rear wheels with a diameter not less than 
495 mm (19.5 in) and not more than 521 mm (20.5 in);
    S7.1.2.6 two pneumatic front wheels with a diameter not less than 
190 mm (7.5 in) and not more than 216 mm (8.5 in);
    S7.1.2.7 a distance between front and rear axles not less than 457 
mm (18 in) and not more than 533 mm (21 in);
    S7.1.2.8 a horizontal distance between rear axle and center of 
gravity not less than 114 mm (4.5 in) and not more than 152 mm (6.0 
in);
    S7.1.2.9 a vertical distance between ground and center of gravity 
not less than 260 mm (10.25 in) and not more than 298 mm (11.75 in);
    S7.1.2.10 a mass of not less than 72.5 kg (160 lb) and not more 
than 86.0 kg (190 lb).
    S7.1.3 Clearance test block for gaps, transitions, and openings. 
The clearance test block is made of a rigid material and is 16 x 16 x 
100 mm (0.625 x 0.625 x 4.0 in) with all corners having a 1.6 mm 
(0.0625 inch) radius.
    S7.1.4 Test Device for detecting platform occupancy. Occupancy of 
the platform is detected using a 152 x 152 x 305 mm (6 x 6 x 12 inches) 
rigid box having a total weight of 22.7 kg (50 lb).
    S7.2 Slip resistance test.
    S7.2.1 To determine compliance with S6.4.12, 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 
cm\2\ (15.5 in\2\) of surface area. Begin the test

[[Page 79446]]

specified in S7.2.2 within 30 seconds of completion of the wetting 
process.
    S7.2.2 Use the test procedure defined in ANSI/RESNA WC/Vol. 1-1998, 
sec.13, 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, implement 
the requirements of S7.2.2.1 and S7.2.2.2.
    S7.2.2.1 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 of the reading in the range of 25N to 100N.
    S7.2.2.2 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 are 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 are rigidly linked by a device that exhibits a stiffness greater 
than or equal to 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, [mu]p, from the 
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE02.000

    S7.3 Environmental resistance test.
    S7.3.1 Perform the procedures specified in S7.3.2 through S7.3.5 to 
determine compliance with S6.3.
    S7.3.2 Attachment hardware, as specified in S6.3.1, and externally 
mounted platform lifts or components, as specified in S6.3.2, are 
tested in accordance with ASTM B117-97. Any surface coating or material 
not intended for permanent retention on the metal parts during service 
life are removed prior to testing. Except as specified in S7.3.3, the 
period of the test is 50 hours, consisting of two periods of 24 hours 
exposure to salt spray followed by one hour drying.
    S7.3.3 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 25 hours, consisting of one period of 24 hours 
exposure to salt spray followed by one hour drying.
    S7.3.4 For performance of this test, externally mounted platform 
lifts or components may be installed on test jigs rather than on the 
vehicle. The lift is in a stowed position. The configuration of the 
test setup is such that areas of the lift that would be exposed to the 
outside environment during actual use are not protected from the salt 
spray by the test jig.
    S7.3.5 At the end of the test, any surface exposed to the salt 
spray is washed thoroughly with water to remove the salt. After drying 
for at least 24 hours under laboratory conditions, the platform lift 
and components are examined for ferrous corrosion on significant 
surfaces, i.e., all surfaces that can be contacted by a sphere 2 cm 
(0.79 in) in diameter.
    S7.4 Threshold warning signal test.
    S7.4.1 Determine compliance with S6.1.2 and S6.1.3 using the test 
procedure specified in S7.4.2.
    S7.4.2 Maneuver the lift platform to the vehicle floor level 
loading position. Using the wheelchair test device specified in S7.1.2, 
place one front wheel of the unloaded wheelchair test device on any 
portion of the threshold area defined in S4. Move the platform down 
until the alarm is actuated. Remove the test wheelchair wheel from the 
threshold area to deactivate the alarm. Measure the vertical distance 
between the platform and the threshold area and determine whether that 
distance is greater than 25 mm (1 in).
    S7.5 Test to determine occupancy of outer barrier and interlock 
function.
    S7.5.1 Determine compliance with S6.10.2.5 and S6.10.2.6 using the 
test procedure in S7.5.2 and S7.5.3.
    S7.5.2 Maneuver the platform to the ground level loading position. 
Locate the wheelchair test device specified in S7.1.2 on the platform. 
Using the lift control, move the lift up until the outer barrier starts 
to deploy. Stop the platform and measure the distance between the 
ground and the upper platform surface and determine whether the 
distance is greater than 75 mm (3 in).
    S7.5.3 Place one front wheel of the wheelchair test device on any 
portion of the outer barrier. If the platform is too small to maneuver 
one front wheel on the outer barrier, two front wheels may be placed on 
the barrier. Using the lift control, attempt to move the platform up. 
If further upward movement occurs, move the platform up until it stops 
and determine whether the outer barrier has deployed and caused upward 
movement of the wheelchair wheel(s) of more than 13 mm (0.5 in).
    S7.6 Test to determine occupancy of inner roll stop and interlock 
function.
    S7.6.1 Determine compliance with S6.10.2.4 and S6.10.2.7 using the 
test procedure in S7.6.2 and S7.6.3.
    S7.6.2 Maneuver the platform to the vehicle floor level loading 
position, and position the wheelchair test device specified in S7.1.2 
on the platform with the rear wheels facing away from the vehicle. 
Using the lift control, move the platform down until the inner roll 
stop starts to deploy. Stop the lift and note that location.
    S7.6.3 Reposition the platform at the vehicle floor level loading 
position. Place one front wheel of the wheelchair test device on the 
inner roll stop, or along the innermost edge of the platform if the 
inner roll stop is not accessible. If the platform is too small to 
maneuver one front wheel on the inner roll stop, two front wheels may 
be placed on the inner roll stop. Using the lift control, move the 
platform down until the inner roll stop starts to deploy. Determine 
whether the platform has stopped and whether the inner roll stop has 
deployed, causing upward movement of the wheelchair wheel(s) of more 
than 13 mm (0.5 in).
    S7.7 Wheelchair retention device impact test.
    S7.7.1 Determine compliance with S6.4.7.1 and S6.4.7.2 using the 
test device specified in S7.1.2, under the procedures specified in 
S7.7.2 and S7.7.3.
    S7.7.2 Conduct the test in accordance with the procedures in 
S7.7.2.1 through S7.7.2.5 to determine compliance with S6.4.7.1. In the 
case of private use lifts, perform both S7.7.2.5(a) and (b), 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 S7.7.2.5(a) 
or (b) with the test device oriented as required by the operating 
instructions.
    S7.7.2.1 Place the lift platform at the vehicle floor loading 
position.
    S7.7.2.2 If the wheelchair retention device is an outer barrier, 
the footrests are adjusted such that at their lowest point they have a 
height 25 mm +/- 2 mm (1 in +/- 0.08 in) less than the outer barrier. 
If the wheelchair retention device is not an outer barrier, the 
footrests are adjusted such that at their lowest point they have a 
height 501 mm +/- 2 mm (2 in +/- 0.08 in) above the platform.
    S7.7.2.3 Position the test device with its plane of symmetry 
coincident with the lift reference plane and at a distance from the 
platform sufficient to

[[Page 79447]]

achieve the impact velocities required by S7.7.2.5.
    S7.7.2.4 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 
S7.7.2.5. Maintain power to the drive motors until all wheelchair 
motion has ceased except rotation of the drive wheels. Cut power to the 
drive motors. Note the position of the wheelchair after its motion has 
ceased following each impact to determine compliance with S6.4.7. If 
necessary, after each impact, adjust or replace the footrests to 
restore them to their original condition.
    S7.7.2.5 The test device is operated at the following speeds, in 
the following directions--
    (a) At a speed of not less than 2.0 m/s (4.4 mph) and not more than 
2.1 m/s (4.7 mph), forward, with a load of 0 kg (0 lbs).
    (b) At a speed of not less than 1.75 m/s (3.9 mph) and not more 
than 1.85 m/s (4.1 mph), rearward, with a load of 0 kg (0 lbs).
    S7.7.3 Rotary platform lifts: For rotary platform lifts, conduct 
the test under the procedures in S7.7.3.3 through S7.7.3.7 to determine 
compliance with S6.4.7.2.
    S7.7.3.1 Public use lifts: For public use lifts, perform the test 
in both possible test device orientations.
    S7.7.3.2 Private use lifts: For private use lifts, 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. If a required direction is indicated in the operating 
instructions, perform the test with the test device oriented as 
required by the operating instructions.
    S7.7.3.3 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.
    S7.7.3.4 Position the platform surface 90 mm +/- 10 mm (3.5 inches 
+/- 0.4 inches) above the ground level position.
    S7.7.3.5 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).
    S7.7.3.6 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).
    S7.7.3.7 During the impacts specified in S7.7.3.5 and S7.7.3.6, 
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 S6.4.7.2.
    S7.8 Inner roll stop test. Determine compliance with S6.4.8 using 
the test device specified in S7.1.2 in accordance with the procedures 
specified in S7.8.1 through S7.8.6.
    S7.8.1 Place the platform at the ground level loading position, 
such that the platform is level.
    S7.8.2 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 S7.8.3. 
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.
    S7.8.3 Accelerate the test device onto the platform such that it 
impacts the inner roll stop at a speed of not less than 1.5 m/s (3.4 
mph) and not more than 1.6 m/s (3.6 mph). Determine compliance with 
S6.4.8.3(a).
    S7.8.4 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.
    S7.8.5 Apply a static load to the inner roll stop by activating the 
controller of the test device such that, with the test device were 
unrestrained on a flat and level surface, it achieves a maximum forward 
velocity of not less than 2.0 m/s and not more than 2.1 m/s.
    S7.8.6 Maintain control activation and raise the platform to the 
vehicle loading position. Determine compliance with S6.4.8.3(b).
    S7.9 Static load test I--working load.
    S7.9.1 By use of the lift controls specified in S6.7.2, perform the 
operations specified in S7.9.2 through S7.9.8 in the order they are 
specified.
    S7.9.2 Place the platform in the stowed position.
    S7.9.3 Deploy the platform to the vehicle floor loading position. 
Center a standard load, including the test pallet, on the platform 
surface.
    S7.9.4 Lower the lift platform from the vehicle floor loading 
position to the ground level loading position, stopping once between 
the two positions. Remove the test pallet from the lift platform.
    S7.9.5 Raise the lift platform from the ground level loading 
position to the vehicle floor level loading position, stopping once 
between the two positions.
    S7.9.6 Lower the lift platform from the vehicle floor level loading 
position to the ground level loading position, stopping once between 
the two positions.
    S7.9.7 Center the loaded test pallet on the platform surface. Raise 
the lift platform from the ground level loading position to the vehicle 
floor loading position, stopping once between the two positions.
    S7.9.8 Remove the pallet from the lift platform. Stow the lift.
    S7.9.9 Turn power off to the lift and repeat S7.9.3 through S7.9.5 
and stow the lift using the backup operating mode as specified by S6.9 
in accordance with the manufacturer's backup operating instructions.
    S7.10 Fatigue endurance test.
    S7.10.1 Perform the test procedure specified in S7.10.2 through 
S7.10.6 and determine compliance with S6.5.1.
    S7.10.2 Put the unloaded lift platform at the ground level loading 
position. Center a standard load, including the test pallet, on the 
platform surface.
    S7.10.3 Each sequence of lift operations specified in S7.10.5.1, 
S7.10.5.2, S7.10.6.1 and S7.10.6.2 are 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 such that the 
temperature of the lift components is maintained below the values 
specified by the manufacturer or that degrade the lift function.
    S7.10.4 During the test sequence specified in S7.10.2 through 
S7.10.6, perform any lift maintenance as specified in the vehicle 
owner's manual.
    S7.10.5 Public use lifts: Using the lift controls specified in 
S6.7.2, perform the operations specified in S7.10.5.1 through S7.10.5.3 
in the order they are given.
    S7.10.5.1 Raise and lower the platform through the range of 
passenger operation 3,900 times.

[[Page 79448]]

    S7.10.5.2 Remove the test pallet from the platform. Raise the 
platform to the vehicle floor loading position, stow the lift, deploy 
the lift and lower the platform to the ground level loading position 
3,900 times.
    S7.10.5.3 Perform the test sequence specified in S7.10.5.1 and 
S7.10.5.2 two times.
    S7.10.6 Private use lifts: Using the lift controls specified in 
S6.7.2, perform the operation specified in S7.10.6.1 through S7.10.6.3 
in the order they are given.
    S7.10.6.1 Raise and lower the platform through the range of 
passenger operation 1,100 times.
    S7.10.6.2 Remove the test pallet from the platform. Raise the 
platform to the vehicle floor loading position, stow the lift, deploy 
the lift and lower the platform to the ground level loading position 
1,100 times.
    S7.10.6.3 Perform the test sequence specified in S7.10.6.1 and 
S7.10.6.2 two times.
    S7.11 Static load test II--proof load.
    S7.11.1 Perform the test procedures specified in S7.11.2 through 
S7.11.5 and determine compliance with S6.5.2.
    S7.11.2 Place the platform at the vehicle floor level loading 
position, center three times the standard load, including the test 
pallet, on the platform surface. Fully place the pallet on the platform 
within 1 minute of beginning to place it.
    S7.11.3 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.
    S7.11.4 After completing the static load test specified in S7.11.2 
through S7.11.4, repeat Static Load Test I specified in S7.9.
    S7.12 Handrail test.
    S7.12.1 To determine compliance with S6.4.9.7, apply 4.4 N (1 lbf) 
through an area of 1290 mm 2 (2 in2) in any 
direction at any point on the handrail in order to remove any looseness 
or slack from the handrail structure. Use this position of the handrail 
relative to the platform as the reference point for the measurement of 
handrail displacement. Apply 445 N (100 lbf) through an area of 1290 
mm2 (2 in2) in a direction and location opposite 
to that of the 4.4 N (1 lbf). 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 lbf) and 
reapply the 4.4 N (1 lbf) 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 platform.
    S7.12.2 To determine compliance with S6.4.9.8, apply 4.4 N (1 lbf) 
through an area of 1,290 mm2 (2 in2) in any 
direction at any point on the handrail in order to remove any looseness 
or slack from the handrail structure. Use this position of the handrail 
relative to the platform as the reference point for the measurement of 
handrail displacement. Apply 1,112 N (250 lbf) through an area of 1,290 
mm2 (2 in2) in a direction and location opposite 
to that of the 1 4.4 N (1 lbf). 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 minutes. Release the force and 
inspect the handrail for cracking, separations or fractures.
    S7.13 Wheelchair retention device overload test.
    S7.13.1 Perform the test procedures as specified in S7.13.2 through 
S7.13.5 to determine compliance with S6.4.7.3.
    S7.13.2 Position the platform surface 89 mm (3.5 in) above the 
ground level loading position. Apply 7,117 N (1,600 lbf) to the 
wheelchair retention device in a direction parallel to both the 
platform lift and platform reference planes. Attain the force within 1 
minute after beginning to apply it.
    S7.13.3 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 in) and a width spanning the entire barrier. Distribute the 
force evenly about an axis 64 mm (2.5 in) above the platform reference 
plane. If the bottom edge of the outer barrier falls 50 mm (2 in) or 
more above the platform reference plane, distribute the force about an 
axis 13 mm (0.5 in) above the bottom edge of the barrier.
    S7.13.4 For a wheelchair retention device other than an outer 
barrier, place the test device specified in S7.1.2 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 S7.13.2 distributed evenly at all areas of 
the wheelchair retention device that made contact with the test device 
when it was moved forward. Attain the force within 1 minute after 
beginning to apply it.
    S7.13.5 After maintaining the force for two minutes, remove it and 
examine the wheelchair retention device for separation, fracture or 
breakage.
    S7.14 Static load test III--ultimate load.
    S7.14.1 Perform the test procedures as specified in S7.14.2 through 
S7.14.5 to determine compliance with S6.5.3.
    S7.14.2 Reinforce the vehicle structure where the lift is attached 
such that it is rigid and will not deform, break or separate during 
application of the load specified in S7.14.3 or remove the platform 
lift from the vehicle and install it on a test jig that is rigid and 
will not deform, break or separate during application of the load 
specified in S7.14.3.
    S7.14.3 When the platform is at the vehicle floor loading position, 
center four times the standard load, including the test pallet, on the 
platform surface. Fully place the pallet on the platform within 1 
minute of beginning to place it.
    S7.14.4 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.

[BILLING CODE]4910-59-P

[[Page 79449]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE02.001


[[Page 79450]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE02.002


[[Page 79451]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27DE02.003

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

    8. Section 571.404 is added to read as follows:


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

    S1. Scope. This standard specifies requirements for vehicles 
equipped with 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 motor vehicles equipped 
with a platform lift to carry passengers into and out of the vehicle.
    S4. Requirements.
    S4.1 Installation requirements.
    S4.1.1 Lift-equipped buses, school buses, and MPVs other than motor 
homes with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) must be equipped 
with a public use lift certified as meeting Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard No. 403, Lift Systems for Motor Vehicles (49 CFR 
571.403).
    S4.1.2 Lift-equipped motor vehicles, other than ones subject to 
paragraph S4.1.1, must be equipped with a platform lift certified as 
meeting either the public use lift or private use lift requirements of 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 403, Lift Systems for Motor 
Vehicles (49 CFR 571.403).
    S4.1.3 Platform lifts must be installed in the vehicle in 
accordance with the installation instructions or procedures provided 
pursuant to S6.13 of Standard 403. The vehicle must be of a type 
identified in the installation instructions as appropriate for the 
platform lift as certified by the platform lift manufacturer.
    S4.1.4 The platform lift, as installed, must continue to comply 
with all the applicable requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 403, Lift Systems for Motor Vehicles (49 CFR 571.403).
    S4.2 Vehicle owner's manual insert requirements. If the vehicle is 
equipped with an owner's manual, the owner's manual must contain the 
inserts provided by the lift manufacturer pursuant to S6.12 of 49 CFR 
571.403.
    S4.3 Control system.
    S4.3.1 Instructions regarding the platform lift operating 
procedures, including backup operations, as specified by S6.7.8 of 49 
CFR 571.403, must be permanently affixed to a location adjacent to the 
controls.
    S4.3.2 Public use lift: In addition to meeting the requirements of 
S4.3.1, for vehicles equipped with public use lifts, as defined in 49 
CFR 571.403, any and all controls provided for the lift by the platform 
lift manufacturer other than those provided for back-up operation of 
the platform lift specified in S5.9 of 49 CFR 571.403, must be located 
together and in a position such that the control operator has a direct, 
unobstructed view of the platform lift passenger and/or their mobility 
aid throughout the lift's range of passenger operation. Additional 
power controls and controls for back-up operation of the lift may be 
located in other positions.

    Issued on: December 13, 2002.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 02-31891 Filed 12-26-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P