# Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Platform Lift Systems for Accessible Motor Vehicles, Platform Lift Installations on Motor Vehicles > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A02-31891 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Rule - **Published:** December 27, 2002 - **Citation:** 67 FR 79416 ## Text 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 ­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. 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 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 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 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 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/ft 2 ) 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. 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 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 weight capacity 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 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 under ADAAG 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, 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 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 ind [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A02-31891. Public record. Not legal advice.