Receipt of Petitions for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance |
|---|
Topics: Ricon
|
Otto G. Matheke III
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
30 April 2021
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 82 (Friday, April 30, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23034-23038]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09050]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0096, Notice 1]
Receipt of Petitions for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Receipt of petitions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Ricon Corporation (Ricon), has determined that certain S-
Series and K-Series Titanium wheelchair lifts do not fully comply with
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 403, Platform Lift
Systems for Motor Vehicles. Due to Ricon's determination, Navistar,
Inc. on behalf of IC Bus, LLC (Navistar), and Daimler Trucks North
America (DTNA), who installed the S-Series and K-Series Titanium
wheelchair lifts in their buses, determined that certain model year
(MY) 2015-2019 IC and Thomas Built buses do not comply with FMVSS No.
404, Platform Lift Installation in Motor Vehicles. Ricon, Navistar, and
DTNA, collectively referred to as the ``the petitioners,'' filed the
appropriate noncompliance reports and petitioned NHTSA for a decision
that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety. This document announces receipt of the
petitioners' petitions.
DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is June 1, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket number cited in the title of this notice and may be submitted by
any of the following methods:
Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.
Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except for Federal Holidays.
Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
[[Page 23035]]
Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard along with
the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided.
All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered fully possible.
When the petitions are granted or denied a notice of the decision
will also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the
authority indicated at the end of this notice.
All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: Ricon determined that certain S-Series and K-Series
Titanium wheelchair lifts do not fully comply with paragraph S6.10.2.4
of FMVSS No. 403, Platform Lift Systems for Motor Vehicles (49 CFR
571.403) and filed a noncompliance report dated July 4, 2018, pursuant
to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports. Ricon subsequently petitioned NHTSA on August 1, 2018,
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, for an
exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety.
Because of Ricon's determination, Navistar and DTNA, who installed
the S-Series and K-Series Titanium wheelchair lifts in their buses,
determined that certain model year (MY) 2015-2019 IC and Thomas Built
buses do not comply with paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404, Platform
Lift Installation in Motor Vehicles (49 CFR 571.404). Navistar filed a
noncompliance report dated August 17, 2018, and DTNA filed a
noncompliance report dated August 23, 2018, pursuant to 49 CFR part
573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Subsequently,
Navistar petitioned NHTSA on August 31, 2018, and DTNA petitioned NHTSA
on September 21, 2018, for an exemption from the notification and
remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556,
Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
This notice of receipt of the petitioners' petitions is published
under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency
decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the
petition.
II. Equipment and Vehicles Involved: On July 4, 2018, Ricon
submitted a noncompliance report and then on August 1, 2018,
subsequently submitted a petition that reported approximately 4,375 S-
Series and K-Series Titanium wheelchair lifts, manufactured between
October 2, 2012, and May 9, 2018, are potentially involved.
In concert with Ricon's filings, Navistar and DTNA who installed
the S-Series and K-Series Titanium wheelchair lifts sold by Ricon in
their vehicles also filed noncompliance reports and inconsequential
noncompliance petitions. Appropriately, Navistar and DTNA determined
the following vehicles are potentially involved:
Approximately 631 MY 2015-2019 IC CE buses, manufactured between
April 10, 2014, and May 9, 2018.
Approximately 84 MY 2015-2019 Thomas Built Series Saf-T-Liner C2
and HDX buses, manufactured between June 16, 2014, and January 11,
2018.
Accordingly, Ricon reported that 4,375 S-Series and K-Series
Titanium wheelchair lifts to be potentially involved while the OEMs
reported, in total, 715 vehicles with the noncompliant S-Series and K-
Series Titanium wheelchair lifts potentially involved. NHTSA made
inquiries to Ricon to try to reconcile the difference in number of
lifts reported versus the number of vehicles reported on multiple
occasions. Then in an email dated June 10, 2020, Ricon provided a table
that reported that 4,481 S-Series and K-Series Titanium wheelchair
lifts were produced, with 312 going to dealers, 4,129 going to OEMs,
and 40 to its parent company, Wabtec Corporation (Wabtec). Below is a
table that outlines the different numbers as reported by Ricon, by
date, for the S-Series and K-Series Titanium wheelchair lifts and the
total number of vehicles as reported by the OEMs.
Ricon S-Series and K-Series Titanium Wheelchair Lifts Potentially Involved
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ricon's 7/4/18 Ricon's 6/10/ Total OEM 573
reporting 20 reporting reporting
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dealers......................................................... .............. 312 ..............
OEMs............................................................ .............. 4,129 ..............
Wabtec *........................................................ .............. 40 ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 4,375 4,481 715
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Ricon is a subsidiary of WABTEC.
The total number of vehicles reported by the OEMs has not changed
and the number S-Series and K-Series wheelchair lifts as reported by
Ricon on June 10, 2020, are the most up-to-date numbers. Based on
current numbers as shown in the table above, there are still 3,766
lifts that have not been accounted for by sales to vehicle
manufacturers and Ricon believes that these lifts were distributed and
sold through other channels. Despite several meetings and communication
with Ricon directed toward identifying their ultimate destination,
NHTSA has not been able
[[Page 23036]]
to determine where and how the lifts not sold to vehicle manufacturer
were sold. NHTSA also feels it is prudent to emphasize that any
decision on these petitions does not relieve vehicle or equipment
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant lifts and vehicles under their control
after the petitioners notified them that the subject noncompliance
existed.
III. Noncompliance: Ricon explains that its Titanium S-Series and
K-Series platform lifts do not comply with the inner barrier interlock
requirements of FMVSS 403, S6.10.2.6 when tested in accordance with the
test procedure at S7.6.1. The subject lifts, as installed in certain
commercial buses and school buses, do not comply with paragraph S4.1.1
of FMVSS No. 404.
IV. Requirements: Paragraph S6.10.2.4 of FMVSS No. 403, includes
the requirements relevant to the deployment of the inner roll stop.
When the platform reaches a level where the inner roll stop is designed
to deploy, the platform must stop unless the inner roll stop has
deployed. Verification with this requirement is made by performing the
test procedure specified in S7.6.
Paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404, includes lift-equipped buses,
school buses, and MPVs other than motor homes with a GVWR greater than
4,536 kg (10,000 lb.) must be equipped with a public use lift certified
as meeting FMVSS No. 403.
V. Summary of Petitions: The following views and arguments
presented in this section, ``V. Summary of Petitions,'' are the views
and arguments provided by the petitioners. They have not been evaluated
by the Agency and do not reflect the views of the Agency. The
petitioners described the subject noncompliance and stated their belief
that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety.
In support of their petitions, the petitioners submitted the
following arguments:
1. The performance of the Ricon lifts do not create an increased
risk to safety:
(a) The petitioners state the S-Series and K-Series Titanium lifts
are commercial application lifts and are public use lifts. The inner
barrier is designed to lay flat for the lift occupant to easily
transition from the platform into the vehicle and vice versa. When the
inner barrier is deployed (i.e. raised upright), it prevents the
occupant from moving off the platform edge at the start of the vehicle.
The inner barrier interlock on the Titanium units utilizes a rod which
travels across the front of the base plate. There are plastic shoe
levers at three different locations in the center and towards each side
of the inner barrier. At the end of the rod in front of the vertical
arm is a torsion spring that activates a micro switch. The design of
the lift operates so that the closer that weight is placed to the hinge
of the inner barrier bridge plate, the further away it is located from
the torsion spring and micro switch when the bridge plate is down. More
force is required to move the opposite end of the bridge plate the same
vertical distance to depress the torsion spring that activates the
micro switch. Because the torsion spring is weight sensing, if the
single front wheel of the wheelchair test device is located within 8
inches of the inner barrier hinge, there is insufficient weight sensed
to activate the inner barrier interlock.
(b) Per the petitioners, the operation of the lifts does not cause
an increased risk to safety. As an initial matter, the position of the
wheelchair test device specified in the test procedure is inconsistent
with the appropriate use of the lifts and does not pose a safety risk
in real-world operation. The test procedure at S7.6.2 provides that the
platform should be maneuvered to vehicle floor level loading position
and the wheelchair test device should be placed on the platform with
the front wheel of the wheelchair test device facing the vehicle. The
instruction in the test procedure to set up the wheelchair test device
facing the entrance to the lift is contrary to the instructions
provided in the Ricon operator's manual instructions and contrary to
industry practice. The industry standard practice is to load wheelchair
occupants onto a lift with their back to the vehicle. Loading in this
direction prevents injury to the occupant's lower extremities and feet.
The petitioners note that as written, the instructions in the test
procedure are inconsistent with the industry standard and Ricon's
operator's manual.\1\ An excerpt from the operator's manual for the
Titanium lifts describes how an occupant should board the lift (facing
away from the vehicle). Similar instructions are provided for an
occupant exiting the vehicle that also indicate that the occupant
should face outward and away from the vehicle:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Titanium units are public use lifts. During the FMVSS
No. 403 rulemaking process, a manufacturer noted that portions of
the rule had testing conducted in one direction when the owner's
manual provided for a different loading direction. See 67 FR 42526.
The manufacturer took the position that such inconsistencies were
contrary to the requirements of the ADA. In response, NHTSA
concluded that since the ADA does not apply to private use lifts,
the loading requirements were not inconsistent with the ADA. Here,
however, the Ricon lifts are used as public use lifts. Although the
ADA states that the lift shall permit for boarding and unboarding in
both directions the industry practice and Ricon's (and other
manufacturers) instructions provide for boarding in the reverse as
an added level of occupant protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) The petitioners state it uses decals to indicate to the
operator the correct means to load an occupant onto each wheelchair
lift. The decals are placed on the vertical arms of the lift and face
outward of the vehicle so that they are visible to the lift operator
when loading a passenger onto the lift from ground level.
(d) Ricon next contends there is no increased risk to safety
because placing a single front wheel on the inner roll stop, as
required by the test procedure, is not a natural position for a
wheelchair to enter and exit the lift. Even assuming an occupant was
loaded and unloaded in the reverse position and contrary to the
instructions provided in the owner's manual, the wheelchair must be
manipulated to achieve a position where one front wheel is placed on
the inner roll stop. To do this, the wheelchair test device must be
shifted back and forth (i.e. brought onto the inner roll stop, moved
backwards and moved forwards at an angle) multiple times to position
the test device so that only one front wheel is placed on the inner
roll stop. This backwards and forwards shifting motion is not a natural
motion and would not occur in ordinary use. In ordinary use, the
wheelchair occupant enters and exits the vehicle with the occupant
facing the street. Further, even if the occupant were to enter the lift
backwards (i.e. facing the vehicle, per the test procedure), the
platform lift is wide enough for the average sized wheelchair and
scooter to fully roll onto the platform in a single motion so that the
single front wheel of a wheelchair would not contact the inner roll
stop within 8 inches of the hinge. The Titanium units (as with all
Ricon's lifts) meet the requirements for ADA standard vehicle door
widths. Consequently, the Titanium units are wide enough for the
average sized wheelchair and scooter to roll onto the lift in a single
motion.
(e) The petitioners add that these lifts incorporate a retention
belt system as part of the platform lift design. The retention belt
consists of durable webbing which is attached to and when belted,
extends across each of the handrails. The retention belt serves dual
purposes and is a redundant safety feature. The retention belt is a
means to physically secure an occupant within the lift. In addition,
the retention belt
[[Page 23037]]
acts as an electrical interlock that is linked to the operation of the
lift. If the retention belt is buckled, the electrical circuit is
closed and the platform and outer barrier can operate when the buttons
on the operator's pendant are pressed. If the belt is not buckled, the
electrical circuit is broken and there is no power sent to any part of
the lift and the platform cannot move and the inner roll stop will not
deploy. However, in actual use outside of the test environment, the
retention belt would not be buckled (and the lift would not be powered)
when the occupant is attempting to enter the vehicle from the ground.
Consistent with the operator's instructions provided above, the
retention belt is unbuckled as the occupant is entering the vehicle so
that even if a single front wheel was present within 8 inches of the
inner roll stop hinge, there is no safety consequence because the lift
is not powered.
(f) The petitioners contend that the noncompliance with the inner
barrier interlock arises only when the lifts are tested with one front
wheel of the wheelchair test device located within 8 inches from the
hinge and when the wheelchair is manipulated in the manner provided in
the test procedure. When the lift is used consistent with the
instructions provided with the operator's manual, the occupant enters
and exits the lift facing away from the vehicle so that the two rear
wheels of the wheelchair contact with the inner roll stop. Consistent
with real-world use (and as demonstrated through the product's
performance in the field), there is no safety risk because the weight
of the rear wheels is sensed by the torsion spring so that the
interlock is activated.
2. NHTSA has previously granted petitions where wheelchair lifts
did not meet the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 403.
(a) In support of the petition, the petitioners contend the Agency
has granted inconsequentiality petitions where the manufacturer has not
met the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 403, finding that the
noncompliance did not pose an increased risk to safety as the lift is
used in the real world. Per The petitioners, the performance of their
platform lifts is consistent with this precedent.
(b) For example, the petitioners note the Agency granted a petition
for decision of inconsequential noncompliance submitted by The Braun
Corporation (Braun) where the lift handrails did not meet the values
for deflection force. While the handrails collapsed when exposed to
forces above the threshold requirement, the handrail~ did not collapse
or fail catastrophically. Per The petitioners, the Agency explained
that its concern in instituting the deflection force requirement was
the possibility of a catastrophic failure of the handrails which would
expose the occupant to a risk of injury. In granting the petition, the
petitioners state the Agency ``anticipated that future tests will
specify placement and direction of forces that will be more focused to
address worst-case handrail displacement and real-world safety
problems.'' The petitioners further claim the Agency recognized the
noncompliance, in this case, did not ``pose a safety concern that the
handrail requirements were intended to address.'' See 72 FR 19754
(April 19, 2007).
(c) The petitioners argue that as with the Agency's findings with
the Braun petition, in actual use and consistent with the operator's
manual, the Titanium units do not pose a safety risk in the real world.
This is because the inner barrier interlock would sense the presence of
the rear wheels of the wheelchair occupant who is loaded and unloaded
facing away from the vehicle. The heavier weight of the rear wheels is
picked up by the sensors and the inner barrier interlock is activated.
The interlock performance is restricted only under the set up per the
test procedure, with a single front wheel facing the vehicle.
(d) The petitioners contend that NHTSA has also granted an
inconsequentiality petition where the deployed wheelchair retention
device was unable to withstand the required 1,600 pounds of force. In
that case, the Maxon Industry Inc. (Maxon) lifts included some designs
where the outer barrier served as the wheelchair retention device and
other designs with both a belt retention device and an outer barrier.
The belt retention device also served as an electronic interlock that
precluded the lift from moving up or down unless buckled.\2\ The
petitioners states the Agency granted the petition as to the units
which incorporated the retention belt and noncompliant outer barrier,
finding that such a design did not create an increased risk to safety
since the belt's operation precluded the lift from moving and prevented
the stated safety concern. Per The petitioners, the Agency denied the
petition as to those units without the retention belt, reasoning that
the lift occupant would only be relying upon a noncompliant outer
barrier for protection. See 72 FR 28759 (May 22, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Ricon is aware of multiple manufacturers that use a belt
interlock that functions in the same or similar manner to restrict
the operation of the platform lift.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) The petitioners note that the Titanium units incorporate a
retention belt that completely prevents lift electrical operation
unless the retention belt is buckled.\3\ The retention belt would not
be buckled, when the occupant is attempting to enter the vehicle, so
that even in the unlikely event that a single front wheel of the
wheelchair were placed 8 inches or less from the inner barrier hinge,
per the test procedure, the lift would not be energized and the lift
could not move at all. The petitioners argue that in granting the Maxon
petition, the Agency recognized and accepted that the retention belt
acted as a redundant safety feature precluded any safety risk. The belt
interlock in the Ricon lifts as well as the operator's manual
instructions create similar redundancies and offer equivalent
protection to occupants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Ricon lifts incorporate a means of manually descending
the lift to allow a rider to exit the vehicle in the event of a lift
malfunction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(f) Finally, the petitioners argue the environment in which these
lifts are used diminishes any potential risk to safety. All the lifts
at issue are for commercial applications and operate as a public use
lifts. In this context, there will be a lift attendant present to
monitor the lift to ensure the occupant enters and exits the lift
safely. When the lift attendant for the public use lift is following
the operator's manual, there should not be an instance where the lift
platform is powered and the occupant is unrestrained. Ricon has used
this same design lift since the start of production for decades and is
not aware of any claims or injury involving the performance of the
inner roll stop interlock.
The petitioners concluded by expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that their petitions to be exempted from providing notification of
the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
The petitioners' complete petitions and all supporting documents
are available by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at: https://www.regulations.gov and by following the
online search instructions to locate the docket number as listed in the
title of this notice.
[[Page 23038]]
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
these petitions only applies to the subject lifts and buses that the
petitioners no longer controlled at the time it determined that the
noncompliance existed. However, any decision of these petitions does
not relieve vehicle or equipment distributors and dealers of the
prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery
for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant lifts and
buses under their control after the petitioners notified them that the
subject noncompliance existed.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2021-09050 Filed 4-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P