|
|---|
|
Grant of Petitions for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Publication: Federal Register Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Byline: Otto G. Matheke III Date: 12 August 2024 Subjects: American Government  , Buses, Safety
Topic: Ricon |
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 155 (Monday, August 12, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65708-65713]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-17818]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0095, Notice 2]
Grant of Petitions for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petitions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Ricon Corporation (Ricon), determined that certain Mirage, S-
Series, and K-Series wheelchair lifts do not fully comply with Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 403, Platform Lift Systems
for Motor Vehicles. Because of Ricon's determination, various vehicle
manufacturers who installed the S-Series, and K-Series wheelchair lifts
in their motor vehicles determined that their motor vehicles do not
comply with FMVSS No. 404, Platform Lift Installation in Motor
Vehicles. Ricon and the various vehicle manufacturers, collectively
referred to as the ``the petitioners,'' filed the appropriate
noncompliance reports and subsequently petitioned NHTSA for a decision
that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety. This document announces the grant of the
petitioners' petitions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ahmad Barnes, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
(202) 366-7236 Ahmad.Barnes@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: Ricon determined that certain Mirage, S-Series, and K-
Series wheelchair lifts do not fully comply
[[Page 65709]]
with paragraph S6.10.2.6 of FMVSS No. 403, Platform Lift Systems for
Motor Vehicles (49 CFR 571.403) and filed noncompliance reports, dated
May 15, 2018, and May 25, 2018, (and later amended their May 15, 2018,
noncompliance report on June 12, 2019) pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Ricon subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on June 13, 2018, for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. chapter 301
contending that the 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.
Because of Ricon's determination, the following vehicle
manufacturers who installed the S Series, and K Series wheelchair lifts
in their motor vehicles determined that their motor vehicles do not
fully comply with paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404, Platform Lift
Installation in Motor Vehicles (49 CFR 571.404). The various vehicle
manufacturers also filed noncompliance reports, pursuant to 49 CFR part
573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports and
subsequently petitioned NHTSA, 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.
ElDorado Mobility, Inc. (ElDorado) determined that certain model
year (MY) 2014-2018 Revability Advantage Ram Promaster 1500 and 2500
motor vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No.
404. ElDorado filed a noncompliance report dated July 3, 2018, and
later amended it on August 11, 2018. ElDorado petitioned NHTSA on
August 6, 2018.
Champion Bus, Inc. (Champion) determined that certain MY 2012-2018
Champion buses do not fully comply with paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No.
404. Champion filed a noncompliance report dated July 5, 2018, and
later amended that report on August 11, 2018. Champion petitioned NHTSA
on August 8, 2018.
Collins Bus Corporation (Collins) determined that certain MY 2012-
2018 Collins school buses do not fully comply with paragraph S4.1.1 of
FMVSS No. 404. Collins filed a noncompliance report dated July 10,
2018, and later amended it on August 11, 2018. Collins petitioned NHTSA
on August 7, 2018.
ElDorado National Kansas (ENC) determined that certain MY 2012-2018
ENC buses do not fully comply with paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404.
ENC filed a noncompliance report on July 3, 2018, and later amended it
on August 11, 2018. ENC petitioned NHTSA on August 6, 2018.
Daimler Trucks North America, LLC (DTNA) determined that certain MY
2013-2019 Thomas Built Buses do not fully comply with paragraph S4.1.1
of FMVSS No. 404. DTNA filed two noncompliance reports, both dated July
18, 2018, and later amended both reports on August 15, 2018. DTNA
petitioned NHTSA on August 15, 2018.
Navistar, Inc. (Navistar) determined that certain MY 2013-2019 IC
buses do not fully comply with paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404.
Navistar filed two noncompliance reports both dated June 20, 2018, and
both were later amended on August 17, 2018. Navistar petitioned NHTSA
on July 19, 2018, and amended the petition on September 24, 2018.
Notice of receipt of Ricon's and the vehicle manufacturers'
petitions was published with a 30-day public comment period, on April
30, 2021, in the Federal Register (86 FR 23038). No comments were
received. To view the petition and all supporting documents log onto
the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ``NHTSA-2018-0095.''
II. Equipment and Vehicles Involved: On May 15, 2018, Ricon
submitted a noncompliance report stating that approximately 29,245 S-
Series and K-Series wheelchair lifts, manufactured between May 7, 2012,
and May 9, 2018, were potentially involved. In conjunction with its May
15, 2018, noncompliance report, Ricon submitted a second noncompliance
report on May 25, 2018, reporting approximately 2,454 Mirage wheelchair
lifts, manufactured between October 2, 2012, and May 18, 2018, were
also potentially involved. On June 13, 2018, Ricon filed an
inconsequential noncompliance petition reporting 23,379 S-Series and K-
Series wheelchair lifts and 2,454 Mirage wheelchair lifts were
involved. NHTSA contacted Ricon to inquire about the differences in the
number of S-Series and K-Series wheelchair lifts potentially involved
as reported in its petition and noncompliance report. This led to Ricon
amending their May 15, 2018, noncompliance report on June 12, 2019,
changing the number of S-Series and K-Series wheelchair lifts
potentially involved from 29,245 to 23,379 and the production dates
from May 7, 2012, through May 9, 2018, to October 2, 2012, through May
9, 2018.
In concert with Ricon's filings, 6 original equipment manufacturers
(OEMs) who Ricon sold lifts to and who installed the S-Series and K-
Series lifts in its vehicles also filed noncompliance reports and
inconsequential noncompliance petitions. Appropriately, ElDorado,
Champion, Collins, ENC, DTNA, and Navistar determined the following
vehicles are potentially involved:
Approximately 42 MY 2014-2018 Eldorado Revability Advantage Ram
Promaster 1500/2500 motor vehicles, manufactured between September 1,
2014, and June 30, 2018.
Approximately 1,500 MY 2012-2018 Champion Challenger, Defender,
Crusader, American, American Coach, American Crusader, CTS-FE, CTS-RE,
HC American, Platinum Shuttle, and Stacked Rail Impulse buses,
manufactured between May 7, 2012, and May 9, 2018.
Approximately 1,947 MY 2012-2018 Collins multi-function school
activity buses (MFSAB) and Commercial buses, manufactured between May
1, 2012, and June 1, 2018.
Approximately 1,447 MY 2012-2018 Eldorado, Aerotech, Aerolite, Aero
Elite, Transtech, Advantage, World Trans, and Impulse buses,
manufactured between May 1, 2012, and June 1, 2018.
Approximately 31 MY 2013-2019 Thomas Built Buses Saf-T-Liner C2,
Saf-T-Liner EFX, and Saf-T-Liner HDX commercial buses, manufactured
between July 21, 2012, and April 4, 2018, and approximately 3,834 MY
2013-2019 Thomas Built Buses Saf-T-Liner C2, Saf-T-Liner EFX, and Saf-
T-Liner HDX school buses, manufactured between May 5, 2012, and July 4,
2018.
Approximately 2,892 MY 2013-2014 IC Bus AE, MY 2013-2015 IC Bus BE,
MY 2013-2019 IC Bus CE, MY 2013-2014 IC Bus RE, and 2016-2017 IC Bus RE
school buses, manufactured between May 10, 2012, and May 2, 2018, and
approximately 29 MY 2013-2018 IC Bus CE and RE commercial buses,
manufactured between May 10, 2012, and November 7, 2017.
Ricon reported that 2,454 Mirage wheelchair lifts and 23,379 S-
Series and K-Series wheelchair lifts are potentially involved while the
OEMs reported, in total, 11,722 vehicles with the noncompliant S-Series
and K-Series wheelchair lifts are potentially involved. To date, no
OEMs have filed for the Mirage wheelchair lifts. On multiple occasions,
NHTSA made inquiries to Ricon to reconcile the
[[Page 65710]]
difference in the number of lifts Ricon reported as containing the
noncompliance versus the number of vehicles equipped with these lifts.
On June 10, 2020, Ricon provided a table reporting that 30,127 S-Series
and K-Series wheelchair lifts were produced, with 7,055 going to
dealers, 22,850 going to OEMs, and 222 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
wheelchair lifts and the total number of vehicles as reported by the
OEMs.
RICON S-Series and K-Series Wheelchair Lifts Potentially Involved
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ricon 5/15/18 Ricon 6/12/19 Ricon 6/10/20 Total OEM 573
reporting reporting reporting reporting
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEALERS......................................... .............. .............. 7,055 ..............
OEMs............................................ .............. .............. 22,850 ..............
WABTEC *........................................ .............. .............. 222 ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 29,245 23,379 30,127 11,722
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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 18,405
lifts that have not been accounted for. Despite several meetings and
communication with Ricon aimed at identifying the distribution and
disposition of lifts not sold directly to vehicle manufacturers NHTSA
has not been able to obtain additional information about those lifts.
NHTSA also feels it is prudent to emphasize that filing a petition
for inconsequential noncompliance does not relieve vehicle or equipment
distributors and dealers from the prohibition 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 S-Series and K-Series
platform lifts and its Mirage platform lifts do not comply with the
outer barrier interlock requirements of FMVSS No. 403, S6.10.2.6 when
tested in accordance with the test procedure at S7.5.1.1 and S7.5.1.2.
As a consequence, certain commercial buses and school buses equipped
with the subject lifts do not comply with paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No.
404.
IV. Rule Requirements: FMVSS No. 403 contains a number of interlock
requirements that prohibit movement of a lift under circumstances that
could result in death or injury. Among these requirements paragraph
S6.10.2.6 of FMVSS No. 403, sets forth limitations on permissible
vertical movement of a platform lift with an undeployed outer barrier
when that barrier is occupied by a passenger's body or mobility aid.
Under these interlock requirements, the lift must stop, and the
vertical change in distance of the horizontal plane (passing through
the point of contact between the wheelchair test device wheel(s) and
the upper surface of the outer barrier) must not be greater than 13 mm
(0.5 in).
Paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404 requires lift-equipped buses,
school buses, and MPVs other than motor homes with a GVWR greater than
4,536 kg (10,000 lbs.) to be equipped with a public-use lift certified
as meeting FMVSS No. 403.
V. Summary of Petitions: The petitioners described the subject
noncompliance and stated their belief that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. In support of
their petitions, the petitioners submitted the following arguments:
1. The petitioners believe that the performance of the Ricon lifts
does not create an increased risk to safety:
S-Series and K-Series Lifts
(a) Per the petitioners, the S-Series and K-Series lifts are used
as both public-use and private-use lifts. The petitioners explain that
the subject lifts are designed with a durable webbing retention belt,
``which is attached to and when belted, extends across each of the
handrails.'' The petitioners believe that the retention belt serves two
purposes and is a redundant safety feature. First, the petitioners
state that the retention belt is a means to physically secure an
occupant within the lift.'' Furthermore, the petitioners state that the
retention belt acts as an electrical interlock that is linked to the
operation of the lift because buckling the retention belt closes an
electrical circuit which, if open, prevents lift operation. If the belt
is not buckled, the platform cannot move and the outer barrier will not
move up or down.
(b) The petitioners contend that the subject noncompliance ``arises
only when the unit is tested to the directions provided in the test
procedure itself, when the retention belt is buckled and the wheelchair
test device attempts to access the outer barrier.'' However, the
petitioners contend that outside of the test environment, the retention
belt would not be buckled (and the lift would not be powered at any
time an occupant is attempting to traverse the outer barrier).
(c) The petitioners state that under the test conditions described
in S7.5.1.1 of FMVSS No. 403, once the platform lift is at the ground
level loading position with the outer barrier fully deployed, the
wheelchair test device is placed on the platform. However, the
petitioners maintain that an occupant secured by the buckled retention
belt, the belt itself would prevent contact between the occupant or
mobility device with the outer barrier. The petitioners reiterate that
no power is sent to either the lift or the outer barrier when the belt
is unbuckled, therefore, the petitioners claim that any time an
occupant is present on the platform portion of the lift, the belt
interlock protects occupants from inadvertent movement of the outer
barrier.
(d) Alternatively, the petitioners note that the test procedure
provides that if the wheelchair test device cannot access the outer
barrier because of a belt retention type device, the test may
alternatively be conducted with the wheelchair test device on the
ground facing the entrance to the lift. In this case, the petitioners
contend that, if an occupant were attempting to access the platform
from ground level outside the vehicle, the outer barrier would not be
able to move unless the belt was buckled. As a buckled retention belt
would stretch across the entrance to the lift the lift attendant or
private individual operator would have to unbuckle the belt to allow
access to the platform. As an unbuckled belt would
[[Page 65711]]
prevent lift or outer barrier movement and eliminate risk to the
occupant accessing the lift.
(e) The petitioners also argue that S7.5.1.1 of the test procedure,
which provides that the wheelchair test device should be placed on the
ground facing the entrance to the lift when loading from the ground, is
contrary to normal practice and the Ricon operator's manual
instructions. According to the petitioners, the industry standard
practice is to load wheelchair occupants onto a lift with their back to
the vehicle to minimize the risk of injury to the feet and lower
extremities stemming from contact with the vehicle.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ During the FMVSS No. 403 rulemaking process, the petitioners
state, 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 425-26. The petitioners
explain that the manufacturer took the position that such
inconsistencies were contrary to the requirements of the ADA. In
response, the petitioner states that 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
petitioners argue that the industry practice and Ricon's (and other
manufacturers) instructions provide for boarding in the reverse as
an added level of occupant protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(f) The petitioners also state that the operator's manual and
Ricon-provided decals facing outward on the vertical arms of the lift
reinforce that the correct loading procedure is to have the lift rider
face outward from the vehicle.
Mirage Lifts
(a) Per the petitioners, the Mirage lifts are public-use lifts. The
Mirage lifts also incorporate a belt retention device into its design,
but the belt interlock functions somewhat differently than the S-Series
and K-Series lifts. The petitioners explain that the belts on the
Mirage lifts act as an interlock sensor that detects whether the outer
barrier is in a vertical (closed) position. When the outer barrier is
closed and the retention belt is buckled, the platform can operate. If
the belt is unbuckled, the outer barrier can move from horizontal
(open) to vertical (closed), but the platform itself cannot operate.
(b) The petitioners state that as with the S-Series and K-Series
lifts, when an occupant is on the platform, the occupant is to be
secured by the restraint belt. To exit the lift and cross the outer
barrier, the belt must be unbuckled. Unbuckling the retention belt
eliminates power sent to the platform.
(c) The petitioners argue that NHTSA's concern in adopting the
outer barrier interlock in 2007 was that occupants could be pitched
from the lift if the lift moved when the outer barrier was occupied.
The petitioners claim that this concern does not exist in Ricon's
design. The petitioners explain that when the belt is unbuckled, as it
would be anytime a person is entering or exiting the lift, the platform
is not powered and cannot move. If the belt is buckled and the lift is
powered, the retention belt blocks access to the outer barrier if the
occupant is present on the platform.
2. NHTSA has previously granted petitions where wheelchair lifts
did not meet the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 403.
(a) The petitioners say that 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. The petitioners believe that the performance of
Ricon's platform lifts is consistent with this precedent.
(b) For example, the petitioners contend 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.\2\ The petitioners say that the
noncompliance, in that case, is that the handrails collapsed when
exposed to forces above the threshold requirement. However, the
handrail did not collapse or fail catastrophically. The petitioners
state that the Agency explained its concern in instituting the
deflection force requirement was that the possibility of a catastrophic
failure of the handrails would expose the occupant to a risk of injury.
The petitioners say that the Agency anticipated that future tests would
specify placement and direction of forces that will be more focused to
address worst-case handrail displacement and real-world safety
problems. The Agency, in the petitioners' view, recognized that the
noncompliance in this case did not pose a safety concern that the
handrail requirements were intended to address.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See The Braun Corporation, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance; 72 FR 19754 (April 19, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) The petitioners note that, similar to the noncompliance in the
Braun petition, the subject noncompliance in the Ricon outer barrier
emerges only because of the revisions to the test procedure implemented
in 2012. The petitioners claim that in actual use and consistent with
the operator's manual, the retention belt should never be buckled when
an occupant is attempting to traverse the outer barrier. Therefore, the
petitioners claim the noncompliance does not create significant safety
concern.
(d) The petitioners state that NHTSA has also granted an
inconsequentiality petition submitted by Maxon Industry Inc. (Maxon)
where the deployed wheelchair retention device was unable to withstand
the required 1,600 pounds of force.\3\ In that case, the petitioners
explain that the 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.\4\ Per the petitioners,
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. The petitioners contend that 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Maxon Industry, Inc. DBA Maxonlift Corp.; Ruling on
Petition for Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 72 FR
28759 (May 22, 2007).
\4\ 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 also state that Ricon lifts incorporate a
retention belt that operates in the same manner as the belt described
in the Maxon petition. In both cases, the belt precludes the lift from
operating unless it is buckled. In granting the Maxon petition, the
petitioners argue the Agency recognized the belt acted as a redundant
safety feature (along with the technically noncompliant outer barrier)
that precluded any safety risk. The petitioners state that the belt
interlock in the Ricon lifts as well as the operator's manual
instructions create similar redundancies and offer equivalent
protection to occupants.
(f) Finally, the petitioners state the environment in which these
lifts are used diminishes any potential risk to safety. When operated
as a public use lift, the petitioners say there will be a lift
attendant present to monitor the lift to ensure the occupant enters and
exits
[[Page 65712]]
the lift safely. When the lift attendant or private individual is
following the operator's manual, the petitioners claim, 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 without incident as it relates to the
performance of the outer barrier interlock.
The petitioners conclude by expressing their 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' petitions and all supporting documents are
available through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website
at https://www.regulations.gov by following the online search
instructions to locate the docket number as listed in the title of this
notice.
VI. NHTSA's Analysis: The burden of establishing the
inconsequentiality of a failure to comply with a performance
requirement in an FMVSS--as opposed to a labeling requirement with no
performance implications--is more substantial and difficult to meet.
Accordingly, the Agency has not found many such noncompliances
inconsequential.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899
(Apr. 14, 2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was expected
to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or
approaching drivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining inconsequentiality of a noncompliance, NHTSA focuses
on the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event
against which a recall would otherwise protect.\6\ In general, NHTSA
does not consider the absence of complaints or injuries when
determining if a noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. The
absence of complaints does not mean vehicle occupants have not
experienced a safety issue, nor does it mean that there will not be
safety issues in the future.\7\ Further, because each inconsequential
noncompliance petition must be evaluated on its own facts and
determinations are highly fact-dependent, NHTSA does not consider prior
determinations as binding precedent. Petitioners are reminded that they
have the burden of persuading NHTSA that the noncompliance is
inconsequential to safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding
noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no
effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system
and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods.
Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
\7\ See Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr.
12, 2016); see also United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d
754, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an unreasonable risk
when it ``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden
engine fire, and where there is no dispute that at least some such
hazards, in this case fires, can definitely be expected to occur in
the future'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of this standard is to prevent injuries and fatalities
to passengers and bystanders during the operation of platform lifts
installed in motor vehicles. Compliance with the outer barrier
interlock requirements in section S6.10.2.6 is determined by using the
test procedure in section S7.5. In that test, a mobility device
simulator is placed such that a wheel or wheels are on the outer
barrier and the interlock must prevent vertical movement of the lift
from the ground level loading position within prescribed limits. As
described by the petitioners, the retention belt interlock on the
subject lifts is the functional equivalent of the interlock mechanism
meeting S6.10.2.6 and provided the same level of safety. 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 un-buckled, the
electrical circuit is broken and there is no power to the lift and the
platform cannot move and the outer barrier will not deploy in either
direction.
NHTSA agrees that the use and location of the retention belt on
Ricon lifts, along with the operator's manual and instruction labels
provided on the lifts provide a sufficient level of safety such that
the noncompliance present in this case is inconsequential to safety. In
so doing, the agency notes that it is unlikely that an operator or user
of the subject lifts would attempt to load the lift with the restraint
belt still buckled, particularly when the normal practice of loading
the lift with the occupant facing outward is followed. If an occupant
began to back onto the lift platform, access would be prevented by the
forward location of the belt and the belt's contact with the wheelchair
back. It is therefore certain that a lift operator would unbuckle the
belt before attempting to load the passenger. Although there is the
possibility of lift users tampering with or defeating a belt interlock
to avoid using the belt restraint, NHTSA is not aware that this is a
significant problem that should be factored into the agency's
consideration of the subject Ricon petition.
As stated by the petitioners, NHTSA has previously granted similar
petitions for inconsequential noncompliance for performance
requirements of FMVSS No. 403. Specifically, in the Maxon petition \8\
referenced by the petitioners, NHTSA determined that Maxon adequately
demonstrated that, under the specific facts and circumstances in that
case, the noncompliance with FMVSS No. 403 in the affected lifts with
restraint belts was inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. However,
NHTSA also denied Maxon's petition in part because the noncompliance in
the lifts without restraint belts was deemed to be consequential
because the absence of belts or other secondary wheelchair retention
devices meant that lift users' safety was dependent entirely on the
noncompliant outer barrier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Maxon Industry, Inc. DBA Maxonlift Corp.; Ruling on
Petition for Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 72 FR
28759 (May 22, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the previous response to the Maxon petition, NHTSA's
current view is that a belt interlock could protect wheelchair
occupants despite a noncompliant outer barrier if operated as Ricon
describes. NHTSA's previous statements about platforms that include
belt-type restraints (see Final Rule 77 FR 20558, at 20561-62) only
addressed very specific test procedure issues and did not address
whether an interlock-equipped restraint-belt can satisfy the interlock
requirements of S6.10.2.5 and S6.10.2.6. The agency has never intended
to limit the use of restraint belts and continues to allow them as a
useful safety feature. (Although there may at one time have been a
concern about belt misuse in the case of private-use lifts, i.e., lift
users intentionally bypassing the belt interlock to avoid using a belt,
the agency is not aware of any data suggesting that misuse is a
significant concern.) In the case of the present Ricon lifts, by use of
professional operators and forward-facing wheelchair seated occupants,
NHTSA is persuaded that a belt interlock, because it completely
disables operation of the lift, serves the required safety function of
the barrier interlock. Furthermore, the subject Ricon lifts meet all
other FMVSS No. 403 outer barrier requirements, particularly the
structural strength of the impact requirements, so they provide
effective
[[Page 65713]]
containment of wheelchairs and other users on the subject lifts, and
thus meet the intended safety need.
VII. NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA
finds that the petitioners have met their burden of persuasion that the
subject FMVSS No. 403 and FMVSS No. 404 noncompliance in the affected
vehicles and equipment is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, the petitioners' petitions are hereby granted and Ricon
and the various vehicle manufacturers are consequently exempted from
the obligation of providing notification of, and a free remedy for,
that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
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, this decision
only applies to the subject lifts and buses that the petitioners no
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, the granting 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. 2024-17818 Filed 8-9-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P