[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 66 (Thursday, April 5, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20558-20571]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8138]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0039]
RIN 2127-AJ93

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Platform Lifts for Motor
Vehicles; Platform Lift Installations in Motor Vehicles

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document adopts amendments to the Federal motor vehicle
safety standards on platform lift systems for motor vehicles. The
purpose of these standards is to prevent injuries and fatalities during
lift operation. NHTSA believes it is necessary to revise the lighting
requirements for lift controls; the location requirements, performance
requirements, and test specifications for threshold warning signals;
the wheelchair retention device and inner roll stop tests; and the
lighting requirements for public use lifts. This notice also discusses
a November 3, 2005 interpretation clarifying specific procedures that
are performed as part of the threshold warning signal test.

DATES: Effective date: This final rule is effective May 7, 2012.
    Compliance date: Mandatory compliance with this final rule is
required beginning October 2, 2012. Optional compliance is permitted
beginning April 5, 2012.
    Petitions for reconsideration: If you wish to petition for
reconsideration of this rule, your petition must be received by May 21,
2012.

ADDRESSES: If you submit a petition for reconsideration of this rule,
you should refer in your petition to the docket number of this document
and submit your petition to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building,
Washington, DC 20590.
    The petition will be placed in the public docket. Anyone is able to
search the electronic form of all documents received into any of our
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the document (or
signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may contact
Mike Pyne, NVS-123, Office of Rulemaking, by telephone at (202) 366-
2720, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For
legal issues, you may contact David Jasinski, Office of the Chief
Counsel, NCC-112, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax at (202) 366-
3820, or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may send mail to both
of these officials at National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Summary of the NPRM
III. Comments and Analysis
    A. Use of Auxiliary Retention Devices for Interlock Procedure
    B. Barrier Impact Test
    C. Handrail Test Procedures
    D. Measurement Procedure for Platform Illumination
    E. Preemption
IV. Technical Corrections
    A. Definition of Motor Home
    B. Change to Application Section
    C. Height Range Measurements in Edge Guard Test
    D. Test Conditions for Inner Roll Stop Test
    E. Clarification of Wheelchair Retention and Inner Roll Stop
Requirements
V. November 3, 2005 Interpretation
VI. Effective Date
VII. Rulemaking Analysis and Notices

I. Background

    On December 27, 2002, the agency published in the Federal Register
a final rule establishing FMVSS No. 403, Platform lift systems for
motor vehicles, and FMVSS No. 404, Platform lift installations in motor
vehicles.\1\ We established these two standards to provide practicable,
performance-based requirements and compliance procedures for the
regulations promulgated by DOT under the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA),\2\ and to ensure the safety of vehicles equipped with those
lift systems. FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 provide that only lift systems
that comply with objective safety requirements may be sold and
installed on new motor vehicles, and that vehicles with lift systems
must comply with objective safety requirements in order to be sold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 67 FR 79416.
    \2\ Public Law 101-336, 42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq. The ADA
directed the DOT to issue regulations to implement the
transportation vehicle provisions that pertain to vehicles used by
the public. Titles II and III of the ADA set specific requirements
for vehicles purchased by municipalities for use in fixed route bus
systems and vehicles purchased by private entities for use in public
transportation to provide a level of accessibility and usability for
individuals with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. 12204.0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMVSS No. 403 establishes requirements for platform lifts that are
designed to carry passengers with limited mobility, including those who
rely on wheelchairs, scooters, canes and other mobility aids, so that
they can move into and out of motor vehicles. The standard requires
that these lifts meet minimum platform dimensions and maximum size
limits for platform protrusions and gaps between the platform and
either the vehicle floor or the ground. The standard also requires
handrails, a threshold warning signal, and retaining barriers and
specifies performance tests.
    FMVSS No. 404 establishes requirements for vehicles that, as
manufactured, are equipped with platform lifts. The lifts installed on
those vehicles must be certified as meeting FMVSS No. 403, must be
installed according to the lift manufacturer's instructions, and must
continue to meet all of the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 403
after installation. The standard also requires that specific
information be made available to lift users.
    Recognizing that the usage patterns of platform lifts used in
public transit differ from those of platform lifts for individual
(i.e., private) use, the agency established separate requirements for
public use lifts and private use lifts. FMVSS No. 404, S4.1.1 requires
that the lift on each lift-equipped bus, school bus and multipurpose
passenger vehicle other than a motor home with a gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR) more than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) must be certified as
meeting all applicable public use lift requirements set forth in FMVSS
No. 403. FMVSS No. 404, S4.1.2 requires the lift on each lift-equipped
vehicle with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less to be certified to
either the public use or private use lift requirements set forth in
FMVSS No. 403. Different requirements apply to vehicles with public use
lifts than to vehicles with private use lifts because public use lifts
generally are subject to more stress and cyclic loading and will be
used by more numerous and varied populations.
    As required by the ADA, FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 are consistent with
the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (ATBCB)
guidelines published on September 6, 1991.\3\ In order to provide
manufacturers sufficient time to meet any new requirements established
in FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404, the agency provided a two-year lead-time,
which scheduled the standards to become effective on December 27, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 56 FR 45530.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 1, 2004, in response to petitions for reconsideration of
its December 27, 2002 final rule, the agency published a final rule in
the Federal Register revising FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404. Among the changes
made by the October 1, 2004 final rule, the agency amended edge guard
requirements and the wheelchair test device specifications.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 69 FR 58843.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 23, 2004, the agency published an interim final rule in
the Federal Register delaying the compliance date until April 1, 2005
for FMVSS No. 403 and July 1, 2005 for FMVSS No. 404.\5\ On July 15,
2005, the agency published in the Federal Register its disposition of
petitions for reconsideration of its October 1, 2004 final rule and
other submissions regarding that final rule.\6\ The July 15, 2005
document did not address submissions received from the Blue Bird Body
Company (Blue Bird), the School Bus Manufacturers Technical Council
(SBMTC), which represents school bus manufacturers (including Blue
Bird), and the Manufacturers Council of Small School Buses (MCSSB), an
affiliate of the National Truck Equipment Association formed to
represent the interest of small manufacturers. The

submissions, which were styled as petitions for reconsideration,
requested changes in the required level of lighting on public use lift
platforms. Since the agency did not address that issue of lighting
levels in the October 2004 final rule, there was no agency action
regarding lighting to be reconsidered. The agency stated in the notice
that it would treat the submissions as petitions for rulemaking and
respond in a separate notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 69 FR 76865.
    \6\ 70 FR 40917.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA received three additional petitions for rulemaking after July
15, 2005, seeking revisions to FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404. Specifically, we
received petitions from Maxon Lift Corporation (Maxon), Ricon
Corporation (Ricon) and the Lift-U Division of Hogan Manufacturing,
Inc. (Lift-U), all of which are platform lift manufacturers. The
petitioners requested that the agency amend: (A) The control panel
switch requirements in S<IP_ADDRESS> of FMVSS No. 403 so that lift controls
in locations remote from the driver's seating position are not subject
to the illumination requirements in S5.3 of FMVSS No. 101; (B) the
threshold warning signal requirements in S6.1.4 of FMVSS No. 403 to
permit warning lights to be mounted in a location clearly visible in
reference to the lift; (C) the threshold warning signal requirements in
S6.1.4 and S6.1.6 of FMVSS No. 403 to clarify the units of measurement
and minimum required luminance at the designated measurement point; (D)
the threshold warning test in S7.4 of FMVSS No. 403 to include a
performance test for warning systems using infrared and other sensor
technologies; (E) the wheelchair test device specification in S7.1.2 of
FMVSS No. 403 to include anti-tip devices; (F) the wheelchair retention
device impact test specifications in S7.7 of FMVSS No. 403 to permit
use of a loaded wheelchair test device; and (G) the requirements for
platform lighting on public use lifts in S4.1.5 of FMVSS No. 404 to
reduce the required illumination levels to those specified by the ADA
and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).

II. Summary of the NPRM

    In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on December 20,
2007,\7\ NHTSA proposed to amend the text of FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404.
That NPRM addressed the six pending petitions for rulemaking. The NPRM
also proposed additional changes to FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 based upon
NHTSA's experience during compliance testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    First, in response to the petition from Maxon, NHTSA proposed an
amendment to make it clear that the illumination requirements of FMVSS
No. 101 do not apply to controls that are located outside the vicinity
of the driver. Under the proposed amendments, controls within the
vicinity of the driver, as defined in S5.3.4(a) of FMVSS No. 101, would
be required to comply with the FMVSS No. 101 illumination requirements.
The purpose of the FMVSSS No. 101 requirement is to prevent illuminated
controls from distracting a driver who has adapted to dark ambient
roadway conditions. That concern is not present for controls outside
the vicinity of the driver. The proposed amendment also specified that
lift controls outside the vicinity of the driver have a means for
illuminating characters to make them visible under both daylight and
nighttime conditions.
    In response to the petition from Maxon, NHTSA proposed an amendment
to the threshold warning signal location in S6.1.4 of FMVSS No. 403.
The present language requires that the visual warning signal be
installed such that it does not require more than a  15
degree side-to-side head rotation as viewed by a passenger in a
wheelchair backing onto the platform from the interior of the vehicle.
The agency acknowledged that the requirement created ambiguity because
it did not specify whether the measurement was a line-of-sight
measurement or whether peripheral vision may be used. Consequently,
NHTSA proposed defining the requirement so that visual warning must be
visible from a point 914 mm (3 ft) above the center of the threshold
warning area.
    In response to the petition from Ricon, NHTSA proposed an amendment
to clarify the units of measurement and minimum required luminance of
the visible threshold warning signal. The visual warning is required to
be a flashing red beacon with a minimum intensity of 20 candela, and
the intensity measurement is taken away from the source. Ricon stated
that it had confirmed that ``candela'' is a measurement of output at
the source, and, to measure luminous intensity at a specified distance
from a source, the measurement should be specified in ``lux'' or
``foot-candles.'' In response, NHTSA proposed removing the requirement
that the visible intensity be measured away from the source and
replaced it with a more general visibility requirement.
    In response to the petition from Lift-U, NHTSA proposed revising
S7.4 to include a performance test for threshold warning systems using
infrared and other technologies. Lift-U acknowledged that the current
test is effective for testing technologies that sense weight. However,
Lift-U stated that the substantive requirement in S6.1 does not specify
the use of a warning device that senses weight. NHTSA proposed amending
S7.4 to include the option of performing the current threshold warning
test with an occupant in the wheelchair test device.
    In response to the petition from Ricon, NHTSA proposed amending the
wheelchair retention impact test specifications in S7.7 to permit the
addition of a 50 kg (110 pound) weight to the wheelchair test device
during the test. Ricon contended, and NHTSA's test data confirmed, that
the center of gravity of an unloaded wheelchair changes significantly
upon impact with an outer barrier. That change, when combined with
continued forward motion of the drive wheels, caused the test device to
flip backwards, resulting in failure of the test. NHTSA proposed
allowing the addition of the weight because this failure is due to the
test procedure rather than any inadequacy in the wheelchair retention
device.
    The petition from Ricon and the recent testing also caused NHTSA to
propose amending the wheelchair retention test specifications in S7.7
and the inner roll stop test specifications in S7.8 to provide for the
turning off the wheelchair drive motor after the initial impact by the
test device. The agency stated that it could be difficult to design
wheelchair retention devices and inner roll stops that protect
wheelchair passengers from all possible situations without interfering
with the normal operation of the lift. The agency also stated its
belief that it was sufficient to ensure that the strength and
configuration of wheelchair retention devices and inner roll stops are
designed so that wheelchairs will not plow through or roll over them.
In a typical real world situation, persons occupying wheelchairs would
not be operating them at high rates of speed on the platform, and would
turn off the drive power upon impact with a barrier. The agency
proposed amendments to the test specifications in S7.7 and S7.8 because
maintaining power after the initial impact may result in testing
inconsistencies due to differences in the drive wheel torque and stall
rates of some test devices. Turning off the power would also stabilize
the wheelchair test device after impact and prevent damage

to the wheelchair test device and the lift.
    As a consequence of this amendment, NHTSA also proposed amending
S6.4.7 to eliminate the requirement that the wheelchair test device
remain upright with all of its wheels in contact with the platform
surface following impact. Instead, NHTSA proposed to revise S6.4.7 to
provide that a wheelchair retention device passes the impact test if,
after impact, the wheelchair test device remains supported by the
platform surface with none of the axles of its wheels extending beyond
the plane that is perpendicular to the platform reference plane (Figure
1) which passes through the edge of the platform surface that is
traversed when entering or exiting the platform from the ground level
loading position. The proposed test criteria references axles rather
than wheels to prevent the occurrence of another type of test failure
during rearward testing, i.e., one in which the large wheels of the
wheelchair test device may rest on the platform and touch the outer
barrier with the tires extending beyond the plane after impact. A
similar amendment was proposed to the inner roll stop test.
    In response to petitions from Blue Bird, the SBMTC, and the MCSSB,
the agency proposed reducing the platform illumination requirements for
public lifts in S4.1.5 of FMVSS No. 404. NHTSA proposed reducing the
illumination requirements to those specified by the ADA and the FTA.
NHTSA intended that its current requirements not produce an additional
burden on public use manufacturers. However, NHTSA was convinced by the
petitioners' arguments that the agency was placing additional burdens
on manufacturers by requiring that they comply with both the ADA
requirements and the more rigorous requirements in FMVSS No. 404.
Furthermore, NHTSA noted the intervening enactment of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act,\8\ which requires Federal
agencies to use available technical standards that are developed or
adopted by a voluntary consensus standards body, in lieu of government-
unique standards, except where use of those voluntary consensus
standards is inconsistent with law or otherwise impractical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Public Law 104-113.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA also proposed four technical changes. First, NHTSA proposed
amending S7 of FMVSS No. 403 to require the performance of the handrail
test in S7.12 on a lift/vehicle combination rather than on a test jig.
The handrail requirements in S<IP_ADDRESS> require 38 mm (1.5 in) of
clearance between each handrail and any portion of the vehicle,
throughout the range of passenger operation. It is not possible to
determine that clearance if the test is conducted on a jig.
    NHTSA also proposed a correction to Figure 2 of FMVSS No. 403.
Currently, the height of the measurement point from which the intensity
of the threshold audible warning is measured is identified as 919 mm.
The proposed amendment would replace that distance with the correct
measurement point of 914 mm (3 feet).
    NHTSA also proposed an amendment to clarify the control panel
switch requirements of S6.7.4. Currently, there is an ambiguity
regarding what must happen when two or more switches are actuated
simultaneously. The proposed amendment would require that, if one or
more functions are actuated while an initial function is actuated, the
platform must either continue in the direction dictated by the original
function or stop.
    NHTSA proposed amending the interlock requirements and test
procedures in S<IP_ADDRESS>, S<IP_ADDRESS>, S<IP_ADDRESS>, S<IP_ADDRESS>, S7.5, and
S7.6 of FMVSS No. 403. The purpose of the proposed amendments was to
eliminate confusion, discovered as a result of compliance testing and
communications from a lift manufacturer. The proposed amendments would
revise and renumber S7.5.2 and S7.5.3 to make clear that those
provisions constitute a single test procedure that is applicable to
both the requirements of S<IP_ADDRESS> and S<IP_ADDRESS>. The proposed
amendments would also change the test procedure set forth in those
provisions to ensure that an outer barrier is fully deployed by the
time the platform is 75 mm (3 in) above the ground. NHTSA also proposed
a similar amendment to the inner roll stop test procedure set forth in
S7.6.2 and S7.6.3.
    Finally, NHTSA included discussion of a November 3, 2005
interpretation. That interpretation is repeated in Section V below to
ensure wide-spread dissemination.

III. Comments and Analysis

    NHTSA received five comments in response to the NPRM from the
following parties: Maxon Lift Corporation (Maxon); the American
Association of Justice (AAJ); the National Truck Equipment Association
(NTEA); \9\ Blue Bird Body Company (Blue Bird); and Lift-U Division of
Hogan Manufacturing, Inc. (Lift-U). Maxon addressed the handrail test
procedure and the outer barrier interlock test procedure. The AAJ's
comment solely addressed the issue of preemption of State tort law. The
NTEA and Blue Bird addressed the platform illumination test procedure.
Lift-U's comment addressed the barrier impact test. We address these
comments in detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ NTEA's comments were on behalf of two of its affiliate
divisions--the MCSSB and the Mid-Size Bus Manufacturers Association
(MSBMA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We received no comments on several topics for which amendments were
proposed in the December 2007 NPRM. We received no comments on the
following proposed amendments: Limiting the FMVSS No. 101 control
illumination requirement to lift controls located near the driver;
modifying location and intensity requirements for the threshold warning
beacon; including the option of using a 5th percentile female for the
threshold warning test procedure to allow for the possibility of lift
systems using infrared sensors; and continuing to exclude the anti-tip
devices from the specification for the standard test wheelchair
specified in paragraph S7.1.2 of FMVSS No. 403. Except as discussed
below, we have included the proposed amendments in the regulatory text
without further discussion for the reasons set forth in the December
2007 NPRM.

A. Use of Auxiliary Retention Devices for Interlock Procedure

    Maxon commented on the proposed technical change that would amend
the test procedure for outer barrier interlock testing. In the December
2007 NPRM, NHTSA proposed revising the test procedure to ensure that
the outer barrier by fully deployed by the time the platform is 75 mm
(3 in) off the ground. The proposed language would provide for the
platform to be moved up until the platform is 75 mm (3 in) above the
ground. Thereafter, the front wheel of the wheelchair test device is
placed on the edge of the outer barrier and the platform is moved up
until it stops. If the interlocks are working correctly, the wheel of
the wheelchair test device will prevent the outer barrier from
deploying, the wheelchair test device wheel will not move vertically
upward more than 13 mm (0.5 in), and the platform will stop
automatically before the upper surface is greater than 75 mm (3 in)
above the ground.
    Maxon expressed concern involving the potential use of auxiliary
wheelchair retention devices such as belts. Maxon states that that
these devices are designed to disable lift operation when they are
unfastened. Accordingly, Maxon contends, it would be necessary to
fasten such devices prior to

conducting the outer barrier interlock test in S7.5. Maxon requested
clarification as to whether belt-type retention devices can and should
be fastened prior to testing.
    Agency's Response: We are clarifying the proposed language as a
result of Maxon's comment. We recognize that auxiliary retention
devices such as a belt can disable lift operation when they are not
fastened, and we agree with Maxon that the failure to fasten such a
belt would render the test moot. To remedy the ambiguity, we are adding
language to S<IP_ADDRESS>, as proposed, to clarify that other retention
devices are configured so that they do not prevent lift operation.

B. Barrier Impact Test

    Lift-U commented on proposed changes to the barrier impact test. In
the December 2007 NPRM, the agency proposed several changes to the
barrier impact test, including a change to the test procedure so that
the wheelchair test device's power is cut off after initial impact with
the barrier. The agency stated that turning off power during the
wheelchair retention and inner roll stop impact tests would stabilize
the wheelchair test device after impact and thereby help prevent
technical failures and related damage to the wheelchair test device or
the lift.
    Lift-U contended in its comment that the power to the drive wheels
should be maintained after impact to test the effectiveness of the
wheelchair retention device. Lift-U stated that the wheelchair
retention device is, arguably, the most important safety device on the
lift platform system because it is the only means of preventing a
wheelchair and passenger from rolling off the edge of the platform.
Lift-U stated that an effective test method must demonstrate that the
retention device cannot be defeated.
    Lift-U also disagreed with some of the agency's assertions in the
December 2007 NPRM in support of the proposed change. NHTSA stated
that, in typical real world situations, occupied wheelchairs will not
be moving at high rates of speed on the platform. Lift-U contended that
the agency's reasoning is flawed because the test itself is an implicit
acknowledgement that it is possible for occupants to lose control of
their mobility device on a platform. Lift-U further stated that the
agency's assumption that occupants would terminate drive power upon
impact with a barrier assumes that the occupant is able to do so.
    Lift-U stated that the proposed test procedure must be evaluated
against the stated test objective. In its comment, Lift-U noted the
agency's two objectives--preventing the test device from plowing
through or rolling over the top of the barrier.
    Lift-U questioned what is meant by the term ``initial impact.''
Lift-U stated that, if it is defined as ``initial contact,'' then the
release of power to the wheelchair test device would subject the
barrier to an inconsequential impact. Lift-U also stated that the
moment of ``initial impact'' could be the moment the barrier reaches
its maximum deflection due to the impact, thereby demonstrating that
the barrier is sufficient to absorb the impact.
    However, even if this more rigorous interpretation is intended,
Lift-U contended that this part of the test cannot demonstrate whether
the barrier is effective at preventing a wheelchair from rolling over
the top. Lift-U stated that height and rigidity are the two aspects of
barrier design that would determine its effectiveness, and that even a
tall barrier would be susceptible to a wheelchair rolling over it if
the barrier is not sufficiently rigid, while a rigid barrier could be
defeated if its height were insufficient to prevent being over-topped
by a wheelchair. In either case, Lift-U contends that the adequacy of
the barrier can be determined only when the wheelchair has had the
opportunity to climb over it after the initial impact.
    Lift-U questioned the agency's assertion that continued application
of wheelchair drive power leads to technical failures that are
unrelated to the barrier's safety. Lift-U also questioned the agency's
statement that it could be difficult to design retention devices and
inner roll stops that protect wheelchair passengers in all situations
without interfering with normal lift operation. Lift-U concluded that
the present regulatory language provides a means to test all aspects of
a barrier's design and thereby demonstrates its adequacy.
    Finally, Lift-U supported other proposed changes to the barrier
impact test. Specifically, Lift-U supported the option of adding a
weight to the wheelchair test device and the change in the compliance
criteria.
    Agency's Response: NHTSA is not making any substantive changes to
the proposal based upon Lift-U's comment. However, we are clarifying
the regulatory text to ensure that the term ``initial impact'' is not
misunderstood. We recognize the merit in Lift-U's argument in favor of
retaining the present test, in which the power to the wheelchair test
device is not turned off until all wheelchair motion stops (except for
the drive wheels). Nevertheless, we believe that a test in which the
power to the wheelchair test device is turned off after initial impact
is more practicable while also meeting the safety purpose of the
standard.
    Our experience to date with the present test procedure has
demonstrated that the behavior of the wheelchair test device is often
unstable and erratic if drive power continues to be applied after
impact. We have observed that the wheelchair test device can bounce
violently on the platform, repeatedly ram into the barriers and other
components of the lift, flip over backwards or sideways, or fall off
the platform completely. Some of this behavior may reflect possible
outcomes of actual lift use, as Lift-U has stated (e.g., a
malfunctioning wheelchair). However, the test is so inconsistent as to
be impracticable for compliance testing. Furthermore, the test is often
damaging to the wheelchair test device.
    Regarding the meaning of the term ``initial impact,'' we agree with
Lift-U that turning off drive power immediately at the moment of
initial contact with the barrier would be an insufficient test of the
barrier's integrity. Allowing the entire impact to be sustained by the
barrier before turning off drive power to the wheelchair test device
(that is, releasing the joystick controller) involves a more
substantial infliction of force against that barrier. When the
wheelchair test device strikes the barrier, slack and elasticity allow
the wheelchair test device to deflect the barrier until the striking
force is counteracted. The barrier will deflect and bend before
developing enough force to stop and begin to reverse the wheelchair
test device's motion.
    We believe ``initial impact'' includes all of the transfer of
energy from the wheelchair test device to the barrier that takes place
during this process. Our intention is that power to the wheelchair test
device should be released only after the full impact cycle described
above is completed. The proposed change merely eliminates additional
impacts which may occur as a result of the wheelchair test device
bouncing repeatedly off the barrier. We believe those subsequent
impacts are unnecessary and that withstanding the first full impact is
both a rigorous demonstration of barrier integrity and an adequate test
of compliance with the requirement. To clarify our intent, we are
changing the text of S<IP_ADDRESS> to make clear that the complete initial
impact of the wheelchair test device is absorbed by the barrier.
Because identical language is also used in the procedure for the inner
barrier impact test, we are making an identical change to S7.8.3.

Otherwise, we are proceeding with the change in the barrier impact test
procedure as proposed in the December 2007 NPRM.

C. Handrail Test Procedures

    Among the technical changes proposed in the December 2007 NPRM were
amendments to the handrail test procedures in FMVSS No. 403. S6.4.9
details the handrail requirements for public and private use lifts.
S<IP_ADDRESS> of that standard provides that, when tested in accordance with
S7.12.1, there must be at least 38 mm (1.5 in) of clearance between
each handrail and any portion of the vehicle, throughout the range of
passenger operation. In order to measure this clearance, the lift must
be mounted on a vehicle during the test. The proposed amendments would
require the handrail test in S7.12 to be performed on a lift/vehicle
combination rather than on a test jig.
    Maxon commented that NHTSA should not make the proposed change for
three reasons. First, Maxon noted that measurement of handrail
displacement on a lift mounted on a test fixture is already difficult
and it would be made more difficult by mounting the lift on a vehicle.
Maxon stated that the added movement could make the accuracy of the
measurement questionable. Second, Maxon observed that S7.12.1 does not
require measurement throughout the range of passenger operation, which
does not ensure that clearance is maintained at all lift positions.
Third, Maxon noted that S7.12.1 and S7.12.2 do not specify a direction
for the applied test load. As a consequence, Maxon contends, a
manufacturer could test only in the most favorable direction and test
only one vehicle. Maxon concluded that the proposed change would
increase the testing burden without providing any increase in safety to
passengers because the test would not ensure that lifts have adequate
handrail clearance in all applications.
    Agency's Response: We have not made any changes to the proposed
handrail test procedures based on Maxon's comments. It appears from
Maxon's comments that the commenter has misinterpreted the handrail
test requirement and the general applicability of FMVSS No. 403.
Regarding the use of an actual vehicle rather than a test fixture, we
believe that the purpose of the test is to reflect real world use and
clearances. Although some FMVSS No. 403 test procedures can be
performed on a test fixture without any compromise in the validity of
the test or its applicability to actual use of the lift, in many cases
a handrail test performed on a test fixture would not simulate actual
handrail clearance and could fail to ensure the safety of lift users
under actual operating conditions.
    Regarding measurement accuracy, we note that Maxon did not provide
any information to substantiate their assertion that handrail tests
conducted on a lift/vehicle combination are inadequate compared to
tests conducted on a test fixture. Thus, we do not have any basis for
determining that handrail displacement tests on a lift/vehicle
combination are impractical.
    Maxon's other concerns are based on a misunderstanding of how NHTSA
conducts compliance testing. Although Maxon states that measurement of
handrail displacement is required only in one lift position, we observe
that S<IP_ADDRESS> states that the required handrail clearance must be
maintained throughout the range of passenger operation. Maxon's
statement that a lift manufacturer could test handrail deflection only
in a single direction is similarly incorrect. Paragraphs S<IP_ADDRESS> and
S<IP_ADDRESS> both state that the required force is applied at any point and
in any direction on the handrail. NHTSA's regulations state, at 49 CFR
571.4, that the term ``any'' indicates that a requirement must be met
at all points within a range of possible points. In this case, the use
of the word ``any'' in S<IP_ADDRESS> and S<IP_ADDRESS> means that a handrail can
be tested and must comply with the standard in every possible direction
in which it deflects when subjected to the specified force.

D. Measurement Procedure for Platform Illumination

    Both Blue Bird and the NTEA submitted comments related to the
proposed test procedure for platform illumination in FMVSS No. 404. The
platform illumination requirement applies to public-use lifts and is
intended to facilitate lift use in darkness. S4.1.5 currently requires
that public use lifts have a light or set of lights that provides at
least 54 lm/m\2\ (5 lm/ft\2\) of luminance on all portions of the
surface of the platform, throughout the range of passenger operation.
    In the December 2007 NPRM, the agency proposed to reduce the
required light intensity from 54 lm/m\2\ (5 lm/ft\2\) to 22 lm/m\2\ (2
lm/ft\2\). This reduction would bring the FMVSS No. 404 requirement
into accord with ADA and FTA light intensity requirements.
    In response to comments received by the agency regarding the lack
of a test procedure to demonstrate compliance with the lighting
requirement, NHTSA proposed amendments to S4.1.5 to set forth how
platform illumination is to be measured. Specifically, the agency
proposed the following procedures for platform illumination
measurement:
     Illumination measurements would be recorded with the
vehicle engine shut off.
     The vehicle and lift would be in an environment in which
there is no ambient light.
     The sensor portion of the light meter would be within 50
mm (2 in) of the surface being measured.
     The measurement would be made with a light meter that has
a range comparable to a minimum of 0 to 100 Lux, in increments
comparable to 1 Lux or less, an accuracy of  5% of the
actual reading and a sampling rate of at least 2 Hz.
Vehicle Battery Condition
    Both Blue Bird and the NTEA observed that, because the proposed
test would be conducted with the vehicle's engine shut off, the light
illumination level would be affected by the vehicle battery condition.
The NTEA asked if NHTSA agreed that the test should be conducted with
the vehicle's battery fully charged with a voltage of approximately 12
volts DC. Blue Bird suggested adding a paragraph to FMVSS No. 404 that
would specify the battery condition at the time of testing. Blue Bird's
suggested regulatory language would require that the battery be in a
fully charged condition as defined by the battery manufacturer or, if
such information cannot be obtained, industry-accepted third party
sources be consulted, and would include measurements of the voltage,
temperature, and specific gravity of the battery.
    Agency's Response: We agree that the state of charge of a vehicle
battery could affect illumination testing under our proposed test
procedure. We proposed that the test be conducted when the engine is
not running, which we believe is appropriate because lifts often must
be operated with the engine turned off. The proposed test procedure
simulates a more rigorous condition than if the engine were running.
    We have considered specifying a minimum voltage for the vehicle
battery for the platform illumination test. However, FMVSS No. 404 does
not directly concern the operation of the vehicle's electrical system.
Furthermore, the specification of a minimum battery voltage could be
design-restrictive and would neglect differences between vehicles. For
example, some lift-equipped vehicles could have an auxiliary battery,
which may or may not provide extra power for lift lighting. In such a
case, it could be unclear which

battery voltage would be applicable to the FMVSS No. 404 test.
Furthermore, we do not believe regulation of the specific gravity of a
battery is warranted because compliance tests are conducted on new
vehicles. Consequently, the batteries of vehicles that are tested would
be relatively new and unaffected by dilution, sulfation, or other
factors that could degrade the electrolyte in older batteries.
    We believe that a performance-based approach for the illumination
test will be simpler and less design-restrictive. Accordingly, we are
altering the proposed test procedure to require that the lift-equipped
vehicle must be operated prior to testing. Specifically, we are
requiring that the engine be run for a minimum of 20 minutes by idling
or driving the test vehicle with the vehicle's HVAC system turned off.
Thereafter, the engine would be turned off and the test conducted. We
believe 20 minutes is an appropriate amount of time to charge the
battery and, if necessary, to warm it to conduct a consistent test. We
believe that this performance-based test, rather than the minimum
battery voltage proposed by the commenters, ensures sufficient battery
voltage in a way that closely reflects real-world use of a platform
lift system mounted on a vehicle.
Illumination Levels
    The NTEA's comment supported adopting the ADA requirements for
platform illumination levels. However, the NTEA noted that, to fully
comply with ADA requirements, vehicle manufacturers have added more
lighting in the vehicle doorway to achieve the lighting required on the
ground beyond the deployed lift. The NTEA states that this additional
lighting could be problematic because the intensity and positioning of
lamps have the potential to obscure a lift operator's vision and could
create a burn hazard.
    Agency's Response: We have not made any change to our proposal
based on this comment. We have no authority to alter the ADA
requirement for lighting the ground beyond a deployed platform lift.
The December 2007 NPRM concerned only illumination of the platform
itself, and lighting the ground beyond a platform lift is beyond the
scope of what was proposed in the December 2007 NPRM. The NTEA's
comment acknowledges that this is not an issue specific to NHTSA.
Measurement of Illumination
    Blue Bird requested that the light meter sample rate not be
specified in the platform illumination test procedure and that the
sensor measurement range not be specified. With respect to light meter
sample rate, Blue Bird stated that specifying a light meter sample rate
could be interpreted to prohibit the use of analog light meters. Blue
Bird also requested that the measurement range for the light meter not
be specified because it is not unusual for parts of a platform lift
surface to be illuminated in excess of 100 Lux, and a technician
conducting measurements would be able to judge an appropriate
measurement range.
    Agency's Response: Regarding the light meter measurement range, we
note that the 0 to 100 Lux measurement range set forth in the proposal
is a minimum range. Thus, any meter with a full-scale range equal to or
greater than that is acceptable. In cases with the illumination level
exceeds 100 Lux, there is no limitation on using a device with a
greater range (or using a higher scale setting on a device with
selectable ranges). We also note that the capability of taking
illumination readings above 100 Lux is superfluous because compliance
with S4.1.5 is established far below 100 Lux.
    Nevertheless, we have reevaluated those specifications and believe
that they do not need to be included in the regulatory text.
Accordingly, we are deleting those specifications from the proposed
S4.1.5 test procedure, and manufacturers will be able to certify their
platform lighting system using any analog or digital light meter.
However, we give notice that, for NHTSA's compliance testing, we intend
to use a light meter that meets the specifications set forth in the
December 2007 NPRM, and we will be amending the FMVSS No. 404 Test
Procedure, NHTSA TP-404, accordingly.

E. Preemption

    In the view of AAJ, NHTSA's discussion in the December 2007 NPRM of
the 2000 Supreme Court case, Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529
U.S. 861, and the agency's assessment of the possibility of preemption
represented a ``sudden decision to claim [implied] preemption'' of
State tort law.
    Agency's Response: The discussion in that notice was similar to the
discussions in other agency notices of that period. As this agency has
previously explained, AAJ generally misinterpreted those
discussions.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Technical Corrections

    The amendments in Section IV were not proposed in the December 2007
NPRM. The agency has determined that good cause exists for the
following technical corrections to be issued without publishing advance
notice of the amendments or providing opportunity for public comment.
The amendments discussed in Section IV correct obvious errors in
regulatory text created by NHTSA's FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 rulemakings.
In one case, the technical correction reverses an earlier inadvertent
change to regulatory text that was made without any discussion in the
preamble.

A. Definition of Motor Home

    In the December 2002 final rule establishing FMVSS Nos. 403 and
404, NHTSA added a definition for ``motor home'' to 49 CFR 571.3 that
applies to all FMVSSs. In that final rule, the agency categorized a
motor home as a ``multi-purpose vehicle.'' However, NHTSA intended to
categorize a ``motor home'' as a ``multipurpose passenger vehicle.''
The term ``multipurpose passenger vehicle'' is defined in section
571.3, whereas the term ``multi-purpose vehicle'' is not defined. We
are correcting this obvious error in this final rule.

B. Change to Application Section

    In the October 2004 final rule responding to petitions for
reconsideration, NHTSA amended the ``Application'' section (S3) of
FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404. The agency made changes to the ``Application''
section to make clear that FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 do not apply to
systems involving specialized medical transport. In the December 2004
interim final rule, NHTSA again amended the ``Application'' section to
delay the compliance dates for FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404. In the December
2004 interim final rule, the agency inadvertently deleted the changes
made in the October 2004 final rule. The changes to the ``Application''
sections in the December 2004 interim final rule were intended solely
to delay the effective date. The agency did not discuss changing or
intend to change the types of platform lifts or vehicles to which FMVSS
Nos. 403 and 404 apply. This final rule corrects this inadvertent
change in the applicability of FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404.

C. Height Range Measurements in Edge Guard Test

    We are changing the phrase ``less than'' to ``more than'' in two
places in the edge guard test in S7.7.4 of FMVSS No. 403. The
procedures set forth in paragraphs S<IP_ADDRESS> and S<IP_ADDRESS> specify a
range of heights at which the edge guard test requirements are
applicable. The requirements are supposed to apply

in a height range extending from 90 mm (3.5 in) above ground to 38 mm
(1.5 in) below vehicle floor level. However, the regulatory text sets
forth the upper limit as ``less than'' 38 mm (1.5 in) below floor
level. In order for the test to be correct, the upper limit should be
specified as ``more than'' 38 mm (1.5 in) below floor level--meaning
that the platform must be lower in height than 38 mm (1.5 in) below the
vehicle floor. Otherwise, the test would only be conducted in two
places, as there is unlikely to be any height that is both less than 38
mm (1.5 in) below floor level and 90 mm (3.5 in) above the ground. If
that was NHTSA's intent, there would have been no need for the test to
be conducted at a range of heights. In order to conduct this test as
NHTSA intended, it is necessary that the platform be no higher than 38
mm (1.5 in) below the vehicle floor to ensure deployment of an inner
barrier or roll-stop. This final rule amends paragraphs S<IP_ADDRESS> and
S<IP_ADDRESS> of FMVSS No. 403 to correct this obvious error.

D. Test Conditions for Inner Roll Stop Test

    There was an error in the proposed regulatory text of paragraph S7
in the December 2007 NPRM. Paragraph S7 sets forth which of the test
procedures must be performed on a platform lift installed on a vehicle
and which may be performed with the lift mounted on a fixture or test
jig. The proposed language of paragraph S7 regrouped the handrail test
procedure of S7.12 with those tests that must be performed on a
vehicle/lift combination. In the proposed regulatory text, we
erroneously included the inner roll stop test procedure of S7.8 in both
groups of tests. The inner roll stop test procedure must be performed
on a lift/vehicle combination as the current regulatory text states. We
have corrected this inadvertent error in this final rule.

E. Clarification of Wheelchair Retention and Inner Roll Stop
Requirements

    In the December 2007 NPRM, the agency proposed amending S6.4.7 to
delete the requirement that the wheelchair test device remain upright
with all its wheels in contact with the platform surface following
impact. Instead, NHTSA proposed to revise S6.4.7 to provide that a
wheelchair retention device passes the impact test if, after impact,
the wheelchair test device remains supported by the platform surface
with none of the axles of its wheels extending beyond the plane
perpendicular to the platform reference plane (Figure 1) which passes
through the edge of the platform surface that is transverse when
entering or exiting the platform from the ground level loading
position. We have modified the language to clarify that such a plane
would be tangent to the edge of the platform surface. We have made a
similar change to the proposed amendment to S<IP_ADDRESS> using the same
language in relation to the inner roll stop requirement.

V. November 3, 2005 Interpretation

    On November 3, 2005, we issued an interpretation letter related to
S7.4 of FMVSS No. 403, addressed to Maxon. The November 2005
interpretation clarified specific procedures that are performed as part
of the threshold warning signal test. Although the agency has decided
against revising the language of S7.4, we include a discussion of the
matter in this document to ensure wide-spread dissemination of the
interpretation.
    In asking about the threshold warning requirements, the incoming
letter suggested that there was an apparent inconsistency between the
requirement and the associated test procedure.
    The agency responded, explaining, as follows, that the specified
test procedure for the threshold warning system is consistent with that
requirement:

    As part of FMVSS No. 403, the agency established a threshold
warning signal requirement for platform lifts in part to minimize
the risk of a lift user backing off a vehicle before a lift is
properly positioned. S6.1 of FMVSS No. 403 requires an appropriate
threshold warning signal to be activated when any portion of a
passenger's body or mobility aid occupies the platform threshold
area defined in S4 of that standard, and the platform is more than
25 mm (1 inch) below the vehicle floor reference plane. A platform
lift must meet this requirement when tested in accordance with S7.4
of the standard.
    In your letter you stated that it is possible to design a
threshold warning system that ``will pass a test that is performed
as described in S7.4 and not completely fulfill the requirements of
S6.1.3''. You described a threshold warning system designed with an
optical sensor at the interior boundary of the platform threshold
area. You stated that such a system would activate the warning
signal only when a passenger is crossing the boundary of the
threshold at the same time as the platform is lower than 25 mm from
the vehicle floor. You further stated that such a system would not
activate a signal if a passenger were completely within the
threshold area when the platform reached the specified distance from
the vehicle floor. Your letter indicated that you believe that such
a system would ``pass'' the test procedure, but not comply fully
with the requirement.
    A system as you described would not comply with the requirements
of S6.1.3 when tested as specified in S7.4. As stated above, S6.1
requires the appropriate warning signal to activate when tested in
accordance with S7.4. S7.4.2 specifies that, with the platform lift
at the vehicle floor loading position:
    [P]lace one front wheel of the unloaded wheelchair test device
[specified in S7.1.2] on any portion of the threshold area defined
in S4. Move the platform down until the alarm is actuated. Remove
the test wheelchair wheel from the threshold area to deactivate the
alarm. Measure the vertical distance between the platform and the
threshold area and determine whether that distance is greater than
25 mm (1 in).
    Thus, S7.4.2 specifies placing the front wheel of the test
device on any portion of the threshold area. As explained in 49 CFR
571.4, the use of the term ``any'' in connection with a range of
values or set of items means generally, ``the totality of the items
or values, any one of which may be selected by the [agency] for
testing''. Accordingly, the procedure specified in S7.4.2 includes
placement of the front wheel that could result in the entire test
device being within the threshold area prior to the platform being
lowered. This also includes placement that results in a portion of
the test device being on the platform.
    Given the discussion above, a system such as you described would
not comply when tested under S7.4.2. As such, there is no
discrepancy between the requirement of S6.1.3 and the test procedure
specified in S7.4.

VI. Compliance Date

    The amendments made by this final rule are mandatory for purposes
of compliance 180 days after publication of this final rule. Optional
compliance is permitted immediately upon publication of the final rule.
We believe these dates are appropriate given that the amendments are
for the purpose of clarifying the requirements of the standard and
providing further flexibility in compliance.

VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impacts of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This action was
not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866.
The agency has considered the impact of this action under the
Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979), and has determined that it is not
``significant'' under them. This rulemaking document was not reviewed
under E.O. 12866.
    This document makes amendments to FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 to clarify
the requirements of the standard and to

provide further flexibility in compliance. The impacts of the
amendments are so minimal that a full regulatory evaluation is not
required. Readers who are interested in the overall costs and benefits
of the platform lift requirements are referred to the agency's Final
Economic Assessment for the December 2002 final rule (Docket No. NHTSA-
2002-13917-3). The amendments made by this document will not change the
costs and benefits in a quantifiable manner.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR Part 121
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory
Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of
the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    NHTSA has considered the effects of this final rule under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this final rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The final rule does not impose new requirements but instead
amends FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 to clarify the requirements of the
standards and to provide further flexibility in compliance.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that
the rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation
of a federalism summary impact statement. The rule does not have
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision:

    When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this
chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe
or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of
performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if
the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this
chapter. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1).

It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any non-
identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the same
aspect of performance.
    The express preemption provision described above is subject to a
savings clause under which ``[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from
liability at common law.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). Pursuant to this
provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle
manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express
preemption provision are generally preserved.
    However, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility, in some
instances, of implied preemption of such State common law tort causes
of action by virtue of NHTSA's rules, even if not expressly preempted.
This second way that NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon there
being an actual conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that
would effectively be imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers if someone
obtained a State common law tort judgment against the manufacturer,
notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance with the NHTSA standard.
Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum
standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose
a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be
preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist--for
example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum
standard--the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly
preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
    Pursuant to Executive Order 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered
whether this rule could or should preempt State common law causes of
action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the
preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that
preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation. To this
end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language and
structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of today's rule and
finds that this rule, like many NHTSA rules, prescribes only a minimum
safety standard. As such, NHTSA does not intend that this rule preempt
State tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard on motor
vehicle manufacturers than that established by today's rule.
Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law would not
conflict with the minimum standard adopted here. Without any conflict,
there could not be any implied preemption of a State common law tort
cause of action.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The issue of
preemption is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there is no
requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or
pursue other administrative proceeding before they may file suit in
court.

Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19855, April 23, 1997), applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental, health, or safety risk that the agency has reason to
believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the
regulatory action meets both criteria, the agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children,
and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by the agency.
    Although this final rule is part of a rulemaking expected to have a
positive safety impact on children, it is not an economically
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Consequently, no further analysis is required under Executive Order
13045.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency
unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. There is no
information collection requirement associated with this final rule.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), ``all Federal agencies and departments shall
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies
and departments.''
    As discussed in the preamble to the December 2002 final rule, the
equipment standard was drafted to include or exceed all existing
government (FTA, ADA) and voluntary industry (e.g., SAE) standards.\11\
Readers who are interested in the source of the requirements in FMVSS
No. 403 are referred to that document. The agency included a table
showing the source of each requirement in FMVSS No. 403.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    This document is not imposing new requirements, but is instead
amending FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 to clarify the requirements of the
standards and to provide further flexibility in compliance. As
discussed in the December 2007 NPRM, the proposal to amend S4.1.5 of
FMVSS No. 404 to reduce the required platform illumination levels to
those specified by the ADA and FTA is consistent with the NTTAA.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more
than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the agency to
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, section 205 allows the agency to adopt an alternative
other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative if the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation
of why that alternative was not adopted.
    This final rule will not result in any expenditure by State, local,
or tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, this final rule is
not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that
implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on
the quality of the human environment.

Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)

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

Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://www.regulations.gov.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA hereby amends 49 CFR part
571 as follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 571 of Title 49 continues to read as
follows:

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

0
2. Section 571.3 is amended by revising the definition of ``motor
home'' in paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  571.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Motor home means a multipurpose passenger vehicle with motive power
that is designed to provide temporary residential accommodations, as
evidenced by the presence of at least four of the following facilities:
Cooking; refrigeration or ice box; self-contained toilet; heating and/
or air conditioning; a potable water supply system including a faucet
and a sink; and a separate 110-125 volt electrical power supply and/or
propane.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 571.403 is amended by revising paragraphs S3, S6.1.4,
S6.1.6, S<IP_ADDRESS>, S<IP_ADDRESS>(a), S6.7.4, S<IP_ADDRESS>, S<IP_ADDRESS>, S<IP_ADDRESS>,
S<IP_ADDRESS>, S<IP_ADDRESS>, S7, S7.4.2, S7.5, S7.5.1, S7.6, S7.6.1, S7.6.2,
S7.6.3, S<IP_ADDRESS>, S<IP_ADDRESS>, S<IP_ADDRESS>, S<IP_ADDRESS>, S7.8.3, and Figure 2;
by removing paragraphs S7.5.2 and S7.5.3; and by adding new paragraphs
S<IP_ADDRESS> and S<IP_ADDRESS> to read as follows:

Sec.  571.403  Standard No. 403; Platform lift systems for motor
vehicles.

* * * * *
    S3 Application. This standard applies to platform lifts
manufactured on and after April 1, 2005, that are designed to carry
standing passengers, who may be aided by canes or walkers, as well as
persons seated in wheelchairs, scooters, and other mobility aids, into
and out of motor vehicles.
* * * * *
    S6.1.4 The visual warning required by S6.1.2 and S6.1.3 must be a
flashing red beacon as defined in SAE Recommended Practice J578 (1995)
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  571.5), must have a minimum
intensity of 20

candela, a frequency from 1 to 2 Hz, and must be located within the
interior of the vehicle such that it is visible from a point 914 mm (3
ft) above the center of the threshold area (see Figure 2) wherever the
lift is installed and with any configuration of the vehicle interior.
* * * * *
    S6.1.6 The intensity of the audible warning and visibility of the
visual warning required by S6.1.2 and S6.1.3 is measured/observed at a
location 914 mm (3 ft) above the center of the platform threshold area.
(See Figure 2).
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Impact I. Except for platform lifts designed so that
platform loading takes place wholly over the vehicle floor, the lift
must have a means of retaining the test device specified in S7.1.2.
After impact, the test device must remain supported by the platform
surface with none of the axles of its wheels extending beyond a plane
that is perpendicular to the platform reference plane (Figure 1) and
that is tangent to the edge of the platform that is traversed when
entering or exiting the platform from the ground level loading position
throughout its range of passenger operation, except as provided in
S<IP_ADDRESS>. The lift is tested in accordance with S7.7 to determine
compliance with this section.
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> * * *
    (a) The front wheels of the test device specified in S7.1.2 from
extending beyond a plane that is perpendicular to the platform
reference plane (Figure 1) and that is tangent to the edge of the
platform where the roll stop is located when the lift is at ground
level loading position; and
* * * * *
    S6.7.4 Except for the POWER function described in S<IP_ADDRESS>, the
control system specified in S6.7.2 must prevent the simultaneous
performance of more than one function. If an initial function is
actuated, then one or more other functions are actuated while the
initial function remains actuated, the platform must either continue in
the direction dictated by the initial function or stop. Verification of
this requirement is made throughout the lift operations specified in
S7.9.3 through S7.9.8.
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Public use lifts. Public-use lift controls located within
the portion of the passenger compartment specified in S5.3.4(a) of
Standard No. 101 (Sec.  571.101) must have characters that are
illuminated in accordance with S5.3 of Standard No. 101 when the
vehicle's headlights are illuminated. Public-use lift controls located
outside the portion of the passenger compartment specified in S5.3.4(a)
of Standard No. 101 (Sec.  571.101) must have means for illuminating
the characters to make them visible under daylight and nighttime
conditions.
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Movement of the platform up or down, throughout the range
of passenger operation, unless the inner roll stop required to comply
with S6.4.8 is deployed. When the platform reaches a level where the
inner roll stop is designed to fully deploy, the platform must stop
unless the inner roll stop has fully deployed. Verification with this
requirement is made by performing the test procedure specified in
S7.6.1.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Movement of the platform up or down, throughout the range
of passenger operation, when the highest point of the platform surface
at the outer most platform edge is above a horizontal plane 75 mm (3
in) above the ground level loading position, unless the wheelchair
retention device required to comply with S6.4.7 is deployed throughout
the range of passenger operations. Verification of compliance is made
using the test procedure specified in S7.5.1.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> In the case of a platform lift that is equipped with an
outer barrier, vertical deployment of the outer barrier when it is
occupied by portions of the passenger's body or mobility aid throughout
the lift operation. When the platform stops, the vertical change in
distance of the horizontal plane (passing through the point of contact
between the wheelchair test device wheel(s) and the upper surface of
the outer barrier) must not be greater than 13 mm (0.5 in).
Verification of compliance with this requirement is made using the test
procedure specified in S7.5.1.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Vertical deployment of the inner roll stop required to
comply with S6.4.8 when it is occupied by portions of a passenger's
body or mobility aid throughout the lift operations. When the platform
stops, the vertical change in distance of the horizontal plane (passing
through the point of contact between the wheelchair test device
wheel(s) and the upper surface of the inner roll stop or platform edge)
must not be greater than 13 mm (0.5 in). Verification of compliance
with this requirement is made using the test procedure specified in
S7.6.1.
* * * * *
    S7 Test conditions and procedures. Each platform lift must be
capable of meeting all of the tests specified in this standard, both
separately, and in the sequence specified in this section. The tests
specified in S7.4, S7.7.4 and S7.8 through S7.12 are performed on a
single lift and vehicle combination. The tests specified in S7.2, S7.3,
S7.5, S7.6, S7.7.1, S7.13, and S7.14 may be performed with the lift
installed on a test jig rather than on a vehicle. Tests of requirements
in S6.1 through S6.11 may be performed on a single lift and vehicle
combination, except for the requirements of S6.5.3. Attachment hardware
may be replaced if damaged by removal and reinstallation of the lift
between a test jig and vehicle.
* * * * *
    S7.4.2 During the threshold warning test, the wheelchair test
device may be occupied by a human representative of a 5th percentile
female meeting the requirements of FMVSS 208, S29.1(f) and S29.2. If
present, the human subject is seated in the wheelchair test device with
his or her feet supported by the wheelchair foot rests which are
adjusted properly for length and in the down position (not elevated).
The manufacturer shall select the option by the time it certifies the
lift and may not thereafter select a different test option for the
lift. Maneuver the lift platform to the vehicle floor level loading
position. Using the wheelchair test device specified in S7.1.2, place
one front wheel of the wheelchair test device on any portion of the
threshold area defined in S4. Move the platform down until the alarm is
actuated. Remove the test wheelchair wheel from the threshold area to
deactivate the alarm. Measure the vertical distance between the
platform and the threshold area and determine whether that distance is
greater than 25 mm (1 in).
* * * * *
    S7.5 Outer barrier non-deployment interlock and occupied outer
barrier interlock test.
    S7.5.1 Determine compliance with both S<IP_ADDRESS> and S<IP_ADDRESS> by
using the following single test procedure.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Place the test jig or vehicle on which the lift is
installed on a flat, level, horizontal surface. Maneuver the platform
to the ground level loading position. Using the lift control, move the
lift upward until the point where the outer barrier fully deploys. Stop
the platform at that point and measure the vertical distance between
the highest point on the platform surface at the outer most edge and
the ground to determine whether the distance is greater than 75 mm (3
in). Reposition the platform in the ground level loading position.
Locate the wheelchair test device specified in S7.1.2 on the platform.
If other wheelchair retention devices (e.g., a belt retention device)
prevent the front wheel of the

wheelchair test device from accessing the outer barrier when on the
platform, the wheelchair test device may be placed on the ground facing
the entrance to the lift, with other retention devices configured so
that they do not prevent lift operation (e.g., with any belt retention
device fastened or buckled).
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Place one front wheel of the wheelchair test device on any
portion of the outer barrier. If the platform is too small to maneuver
one front wheel on the outer barrier, two front wheels may be placed on
the outer barrier. Note the distance between a horizontal plane
(passing through the point of contact between the wheelchair test
device wheel(s) and the upper surface of the outer barrier) and the
ground. Using the lift control, move the platform up until it stops.
Measure the vertical distance between the highest point of the platform
surface at the outer most edge and the ground to determine compliance
with S<IP_ADDRESS>. Measure the vertical change in distance of the
horizontal plane (passing through the point of contact between the
wheelchair test device wheel(s) and the upper surface of the outer
barrier) to determine compliance with S<IP_ADDRESS>.
    S7.6 Inner roll stop non-deployment interlock and occupied inner
roll stop interlock test.
    S7.6.1 Determine compliance with both S<IP_ADDRESS> and S<IP_ADDRESS> by
using the single test procedure in S7.6.2 and S7.6.3.
    S7.6.2 Maneuver the platform to the vehicle floor level loading
position, and position the wheelchair test device specified in S7.1.2
on the platform with the front of the wheelchair test device facing the
vehicle. Using the lift control, move the platform down until the inner
roll stop fully deploys. Stop the lift and note that location.
    S7.6.3 Reposition the platform at the vehicle floor level loading
position. Place one front wheel of the wheelchair test device on the
inner roll stop. If the platform is too small to maneuver one front
wheel on the inner roll stop, two front wheels may be placed on the
inner roll stop. Note the vertical distance between a horizontal plane
(passing through the point of contact between the wheelchair test
device wheel(s) and the upper surface of the inner roll stop) and the
ground. Using the lift control, move the platform down until it stops.
Compare the location of the platform relative to the location noted in
S7.6.2 to determine compliance with S<IP_ADDRESS>. Measure the vertical
change in distance of the horizontal plane (passing through the point
of contact between the wheelchair test device wheel(s) and the upper
surface of the inner roll stop) to determine compliance with S<IP_ADDRESS>.
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> An optional 50 kg (110 pounds) of weight may be centered,
evenly distributed, and secured in the seat of the wheelchair test
device to assist in stabilizing the wheelchair test device during
testing. The manufacturer shall select the option by the time it
certifies the lift and may not thereafter select a different test
option for the lift. Accelerate the test device onto the platform under
its own power such that the test device impacts the wheelchair
retention device at each speed and direction combination specified in
S<IP_ADDRESS>. Terminate power to the wheelchair test device by means of the
wheelchair controller after completion of the initial impact of any
portion of the wheelchair test device with the wheelchair retention
device. Note the position of the wheelchair test device following each
impact to determine compliance with S6.4.7. If necessary, after each
impact, adjust or replace the footrests to restore them to their
original condition.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> The test device is operated at the following speeds, in
the following directions--
    (a) At a speed of not less than 2.0 m/s (4.4 mph) and not more than
2.1 m/s (4.7 mph) in the forward direction.
    (b) At a speed of not less than 1.75 m/s (3.9 mph) and not more
than 1.85 m/s (4.1 mph) in the rearward direction.
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Adjust the control of the test device to a setting that
provides maximum acceleration and steer the test device from side-to-
side and corner-to-corner of the lift platform, attempting to steer the
test device off the platform. After each attempt, when the wheelchair
test device stalls due to contact with a barrier, release the control
to Neutral and realign the test device to the starting position. Repeat
this sequence at any level that is more than 90 mm 10 mm
(3.5 in 0.4 in) above the ground level loading position and
more than 38 mm 10 mm (1.5 in 0.4 in) below the
vehicle floor level loading position. Repeat this sequence at 38 mm
10 mm (1.5 in 0.4 in) below the vehicle floor
level loading position.
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Adjust the control of the test device to a setting that
provides maximum acceleration and steer the test device from side-to-
side and corner-to-corner of the lift platform, attempting to steer the
test device off the platform. After each attempt, when the wheelchair
test device stalls due to contact with a barrier, release the control
to Neutral and realign the test device to the starting position. Repeat
this sequence at any level that is more than 90 mm 10 mm
(3.5 in 0.4 in) above the ground level loading position and
more than 38 mm 10 mm (1.5 in 0.4 in) below the
vehicle floor loading position. Repeat this sequence at 38 mm 10 mm (1.5 in 0.4 in) below the vehicle floor level
loading position.
* * * * *
    S7.8.3 An optional 50 kg (110 pounds) of weight may be centered,
evenly distributed, and secured in the seat of the wheelchair test
device to assist in stabilizing the wheelchair test device during
testing. The manufacturer shall select the option by the time it
certifies the lift and may not thereafter select a different test
option for the lift. Accelerate the test device onto the platform such
that it impacts the inner roll stop at a speed of not less than 1.5 m/s
(3.4 mph) and not more than 1.6 m/s (3.6 mph). Terminate power to the
wheelchair test device by means of the wheelchair controller after
completion of the initial impact of any portion of the wheelchair test
device with the inner roll stop. Determine compliance with S<IP_ADDRESS>(a).
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05AP12.001

* * * * *

0
4. Section 571.404 is amended by revising paragraphs S3 and S4.1.5 to
read as follows:

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

* * * * *
    S3 Application. This standard applies to motor vehicles
manufactured on and after July 1, 2005, that are equipped with a
platform lift designed to carry standing passengers who may be aided by
canes or walkers, as well as persons seated in wheelchairs, scooters,
and other mobility aids, into and out of the vehicle.
* * * * *
    S4.1.5 Platform Lighting on public use lifts. Public-use lifts must
be provided with a light or set of lights that provide at least 22 lm/
m\2\ or 22 Lux (2 lm/ft\2\ or 2 foot-candles) of illumination on all
portions of the surface of the platform when the platform is at the
vehicle floor level. Additionally, a light or set of lights must
provide at least 11 lm/m\2\ or 11 Lux (1 lm/ft\2\ or 1 foot-candle) of
illumination on all portions of the surface of the platform and all
portions of the surface of the passenger-unloading ramp at ground
level. In preparation for taking illumination measurements, operate the
vehicle engine by idling or driving the test vehicle, with the
vehicle's HVAC system turned off, for a minimum of 20 minutes, after
which the engine is turned off. Illumination measurements are then
recorded no later than 10 minutes after the time the engine is turned
off, with the vehicle in a location where there is no apparent ambient
light, and with the sensing element of the measuring device within 50
mm (2 inches) of the platform surface being measured.
* * * * *

    Issued on: March 28, 2012.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-8138 Filed 4-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C