Receipt of Petitions for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 23038-23042 [2021-09049]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
23038
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 82 / Friday, April 30, 2021 / Notices
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
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2018–0095, Notice 1]
Receipt of Petitions for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Receipt of petitions.
AGENCY:
Ricon Corporation (Ricon),
has determined that certain Mirage, SSeries, 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 SSeries, 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
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:58 Apr 29, 2021
Jkt 253001
decision that the subject noncompliance
is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety. This document
announces receipt of the petitioners’
petitions.
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.
• 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, 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
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 Mirage, S-Series, and K-Series
wheelchair lifts do not fully comply
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 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.
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)
has 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
E:\FR\FM\30APN1.SGM
30APN1
23039
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 82 / Friday, April 30, 2021 / Notices
it on August 11, 2018. ElDorado
petitioned NHTSA on August 6, 2018.
Champion Bus, Inc. (Champion) has
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) has
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) has
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 in
July 3, 2018, and later amended it on
August 11, 2018. ENC petitioned
NHTSA on August 6, 2018.
Daimler Trucks North America, LLC
(DTNA) has 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) has
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 August 17,
2018. Navistar petitioned NHTSA on
July 19, 2018 and amended the petition
on September 24, 2018.
This notice of receipt of petitions is
published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and
30120 and does not represent any
agency decision or other exercises of
judgment concerning the merits of the
petitions.
II. Equipment and Vehicles Involved:
On May 15, 2018, Ricon submitted a
noncompliance report that reported
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, that reported 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 that reported 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, SafT-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-TLiner C2, Saf-T-Liner EFX, and Saf-TLiner 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
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
that reported 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 KSeries wheelchair lifts and the total
number of vehicles as reported by the
OEMs.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
RICON S-SERIES AND K-SERIES WHEELCHAIR LIFTS POTENTIALLY INVOLVED
Total OEM
573
reporting
Ricon 5/15/18
reporting
Ricon 6/12/19
reporting
Ricon 6/10/20
reporting
DEALERS ........................................................................................................
OEMs ...............................................................................................................
WABTEC * ........................................................................................................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
7,055
22,850
222
........................
........................
........................
Total ..........................................................................................................
29,245
23,379
30,127
11,722
* Ricon is a subsidiary of WABTEC
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:58 Apr 29, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\30APN1.SGM
30APN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
23040
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 82 / Friday, April 30, 2021 / Notices
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
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 it’s S-Series and K-Series platform
lifts and its Mirage platform lifts do not
comply with the outer barrier interlock
requirements of FMVSS 403, S6.10.2.6
when tested in accordance with the test
procedure at S7.5.1.1 and S7.5.1.2. To
that end, the subject lifts, as installed in
certain commercial buses or school
buses, do not comply with paragraph
S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404.
IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph
S6.10.2.6 of FMVSS No. 403, includes
vertical deployment requirements for a
platform lift equipped with an outer
barrier when occupied by portions of
the passenger’s body or mobility aid
during the operation of the lift. When
the platform stops, the vertical change
in distance of the horizontal plane
(passing through the point of contact
between the wheelchair test device
wheel(s) and the upper surface of the
outer barrier) must not be greater than
13 mm (0.5 in). Verification of
compliance with this requirement is
made using the test procedure specified
in paragraph S7.5.1.
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:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:58 Apr 29, 2021
Jkt 253001
1. The performance of the Ricon lifts
do 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. These
lifts have a retention belt 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 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, the platform
cannot move and the outer barrier will
not deploy in either direction.
(b) The petitioners contend the
nonconformance to the outer barrier
interlock provision 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, in
actual use the 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 in S7.5.1.1, once the
platform lift is placed at the ground
level loading position with the outer
barrier fully deployed, the wheelchair
test device is placed on the platform.
Once the occupant is secured by the
buckled retention belt, the length of the
belt prevents the occupant from
physically accessing the outer barrier. If
the belt is unbuckled, no power is sent
to either the lift or the outer barrier and
they will not be able to move. Therefore,
any time an occupant is present on the
platform portion of the lift, the design
of the lift protects the occupant from
inadvertent movement of the outer
barrier.
(d) Alternatively, the petitioners
contend 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. An
occupant entering the lift from the
ground level also does not present an
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
increased risk to safety. As an initial
matter, 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. If the belt is buckled,
it stretches across the handrails and the
occupant cannot access the platform
because the secured belt blocks the way.
Once the lift is maneuvered to ground
level and the outer barrier is deployed,
the lift attendant or private individual
must unbuckle the belt to allow access
to the platform. At this point, the
electrical circuit is broken and there is
no power to the lift or outer barrier and
no risk to the occupant accessing the
lift. Once the occupant is safely
positioned on the platform, the belt is
re-buckled and power is restored.
(e) Per the petitioners, a separate issue
is that the test procedure in S7.5.1.1
provides that when loading from the
ground, the wheelchair test device
should be placed on the ground facing
the entrance to the lift. The instruction
to have the wheelchair test facing the
entrance to the lift is contrary to the
Ricon operator’s manual instructions
and 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. As written, the
instructions in the test procedure are
inconsistent with the industry standard
and Ricon’s operator’s manual.1
(f) The petitioners argue that it
provides instructions in the operator’s
manual describing how an occupant
should board the lift and how an
occupant should exit a vehicle. Ricon
also provides decals to indicate to the
operator the correct means to load an
occupant onto each wheelchair lift,
which are placed on the vertical arms of
the lift and face outward of the vehicle
so that they are visible when loading a
passenger onto the lift from the ground
level.
1 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 425–26. 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.
E:\FR\FM\30APN1.SGM
30APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 82 / Friday, April 30, 2021 / Notices
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
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 belt on
the Mirage lifts acts 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, he/she 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. This concern does not
exist in Ricon’s design. 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) Per the petitioners, 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
performance of Ricon’s platform lifts are
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. While the handrails
collapsed when exposed to forces above
the threshold requirement, the handrail
did not collapse or fail catastrophically.
The petitioners state 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 Agency ‘‘anticipated
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:58 Apr 29, 2021
Jkt 253001
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 Agency, in the
petitioners’ view, 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 note that as with
the Braun petition, the technical
noncompliance in the Ricon outer
barrier emerges only because of the
revisions to the test procedure
implemented in 2012. In actual use and
consistent with the operator’s manual,
the retention belt should never be
buckled (and it would be illogical to do
so) when an occupant is attempting to
traverse the outer barrier. As such, the
noncompliance does not create a realworld safety concern and certainly not
the type of safety concern that the outer
barrier interlock was intended to
address the movement of the lift
platform while the outer barrier was
occupied.
(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. In that case, 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.2 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. See 72 FR
28759 (May 22, 2007).
(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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
23041
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 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, 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 or private
individual 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 without
incident as it relates to the performance
of the outer barrier 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 petitioner’s 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.
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
E:\FR\FM\30APN1.SGM
30APN1
23042
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 82 / Friday, April 30, 2021 / Notices
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. 2021–09049 Filed 4–29–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of Foreign Assets Control
Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions
Office of Foreign Assets
Control, Treasury.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of the
Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets
Control (OFAC) is publishing the names
of one or more persons whose property
and interests in property have been
unblocked and have been removed from
OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals
and Blocked Persons List (SDN List).
DATES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section for effective date.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
OFAC: Andrea Gacki, Director, tel.:
202–622–2490; Associate Director for
Global Targeting, tel.: 202–622–2420;
Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.:
202–622–2480; Assistant Director for
Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202–622–4855;
or the Assistant Director for Sanctions
Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202–622–
2490.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Electronic Availability
The Specially Designated Nationals
(SDN) and Blocked Persons List and
additional information concerning
OFAC sanctions programs are available
on OFAC’s website (https://
www.treasury.gov/ofac).
Notice of OFAC Action
On April 23, 2021, OFAC determined
that the property and interests in
property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of
the following persons are unblocked
and they have been removed from the
SDN List under the relevant sanctions
authorities listed below.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Individuals
1. CARO ELENES, Henoch Emilio, Callejon
del Sereno No. 4361, Col. Fracc. Jardines
Universidad, Zapopan, Jalisco C.P. 45110,
Mexico; Paseo del Bosque No. 2428, Colonia
Lomas Altas, Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico; Av.
Pablo Neruda No. 4111, Casa 1, Colonia
Lomas del Valle, Zapopan, Jalisco C.P. 45129,
Mexico; Paseo de los Parques No. 3995,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:58 Apr 29, 2021
Jkt 253001
Interior 7, Zapopan, Jalisco C.P. 45110,
Mexico; Loreto Mendez #4432, Guadalajara,
Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 15 Mar 1980; POB
Culiacan, Sinaloa, Mexico; alt. POB
Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; R.F.C.
CAEH800315V38 (Mexico); C.U.R.P.
CAEH800315HSLRLN07 (Mexico)
(individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: BLUE
POINT SALT, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To:
DESARROLLOS BIO GAS, S.A. DE C.V.;
Linked To: ECA ENERGETICOS, S.A. DE
C.V.; Linked To: EVCOMER, S.A. DE C.V.;
Linked To: PETRO BIO, S. DE R.L. DE C.V.;
Linked To: PRONTO SHOES, S.A. DE C.V.;
Linked To: REFORESTACIONES CARELES,
S. DE P.R. DE R.L.; Linked To:
ARRENDADORA TURIN, S.A.; Linked To:
BARSAT, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To:
DESARROLLADORA SAN FRANCISCO DEL
RINCON, S.A. DE C. V.; Linked To:
DINERMAS, S. DE R.L. DE C.V.; Linked To:
ENERGETICOS VAGO, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked
To: FORTANAS, S. DE R.L. DE C.V.; Linked
To: GRUPO BARSATERRA S.A. DE C.V.;
Linked To: GRUPO ESPANOL ELCAR, S.A.
DE C.V.; Linked To: MINERALES NUEVA
ERA, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: MINERALES
NUEVA GENERACION, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked
To: NUEVA TERRA, S. DE R.L. DE C.V.;
Linked To: OPERADORA ENGO, S.C.; Linked
To: PETRO LONDON, S. DE R.L. DE C.V.;
Linked To: PETRO MAS, S. DE R.L. DE C.V.;
Linked To: PROMI FEL, S. DE R.L. DE C.V.;
Linked To: TAXI AEREO NACIONAL DE
CULIACAN, S.A.; Linked To: VILLAS DEL
COLLI S.A. DE C.V.).
2. CARO ELENES, Hector Rafael (a.k.a.
CARO HELENES, Hector Rafael), Callejon del
Serrano 4361, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico;
Loreto Mendez #4432, Guadalajara, Jalisco,
Mexico; San Gonzalo No. 1715, Colonia
Santa Isabel, Zapopan, Jalisco C.P. 45110,
Mexico; Calle Circuito Madrigal No. 4236
Interior 5, Colonia Santa Isabel, Zapopan,
Jalisco C.P. 45110, Mexico; Avenida
Acueducto No. 5056, Colonia Jardines de la
Patria, Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 18 Dec
1975; POB Culiacan, Sinaloa, Mexico; R.F.C.
CAEH751218JT4 (Mexico); C.U.R.P.
CAEH751218HSLRLC01 (Mexico)
(individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: BLUE
POINT SALT, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To:
DESARROLLOS BIO GAS, S.A. DE C.V.;
Linked To: ECA ENERGETICOS, S.A. DE
C.V.; Linked To: ORGANIC SALT, S.A. DE
C.V.; Linked To: PETRO BIO, S. DE R.L. DE
C.V.; Linked To: PRONTO SHOES, S.A. DE
C.V.; Linked To: ARRENDADORA TURIN,
S.A.; Linked To: BARSAT, S.A. DE C.V.;
Linked To: DESARROLLADORA SAN
FRANCISCO DEL RINCON, S.A. DE C. V.;
Linked To: DINERMAS, S. DE R.L. DE C.V.;
Linked To: ENERGETICOS VAGO, S.A. DE
C.V.; Linked To: ESTACION DE SERVICIO
ATEMAJAC, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To:
FORTANAS, S. DE R.L. DE C.V.; Linked To:
GRUPO BARSATERRA S.A. DE C.V.; Linked
To: GRUPO ESPANOL ELCAR, S.A. DE C.V.;
Linked To: INMOBILIARIA PROMINENTE,
S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: NUEVA TERRA, S.
DE R.L. DE C.V.; Linked To: OPERADORA
ENGO, S.C.; Linked To: PETRO LONDON, S.
DE R.L. DE C.V.; Linked To: PETRO MAS, S.
DE R.L. DE C.V.; Linked To: PROMI FEL, S.
DE R.L. DE C.V.; Linked To: SERVICIO Y
OPERADORA SANTA ANA, S.A. DE C.V.;
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Linked To: TAXI AEREO NACIONAL DE
CULIACAN, S.A.; Linked To: VILLAS DEL
COLLI S.A. DE C.V.).
3. CARO ELENES, Mario Yibran (a.k.a.
CARO, Gibran), Callejon del Sereno No.
4361, Col. Fracc. Jardines Universidad,
Zapopan, Jalisco C.P. 45110, Mexico; Calle
Loreto Mendez 4432, Sector Hidalgo,
Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 11 Jun
1983; POB Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico;
R.F.C. CAEM830611SXD (Mexico); C.U.R.P.
CAEM830611HJCRLR05 (Mexico)
(individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: PETRO
BIO, S. DE R.L. DE C.V.; Linked To: PRONTO
SHOES, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To:
REFORESTACIONES CARELES, S. DE P.R.
DE R.L.; Linked To: BARSAT, S.A. DE C.V.;
Linked To: DINERMAS, S. DE R.L. DE C.V.;
Linked To: NUEVA TERRA, S. DE R.L. DE
C.V.; Linked To: PETRO MAS, S. DE R.L. DE
C.V.; Linked To: PROMI FEL, S. DE R.L. DE
C.V.; Linked To: TAXI AEREO NACIONAL
DE CULIACAN, S.A.).
4. CARO ELENES, Roxana Elizabeth,
Callejon del Sereno No. 4361, Col. Fracc.
Jardines Universidad, Zapopan, Jalisco C.P.
45110, Mexico; San Gonzalo No. 1715,
Colonia Santa Isabel, Zapopan, Jalisco C.P.
45110, Mexico; DOB 17 Jan 1978; POB
Culiacan, Sinaloa, Mexico; R.F.C.
CAER780117MK8 (Mexico); C.U.R.P.
CAER780117MSLRLX03 (Mexico)
(individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To:
HACIENDA LAS LIMAS, S.A. DE C.V.;
Linked To: PETRO BIO, S. DE R.L. DE C.V.;
Linked To: REFORESTACIONES CARELES,
S. DE P.R. DE R.L.; Linked To: BARSAT, S.A.
DE C.V.; Linked To: TAXI AEREO
NACIONAL DE CULIACAN, S.A.).
5. ELENES LERMA, Maria Elizabeth (a.k.a.
ELENES DE CARO, Elizabeth), San Gonzalo
No. 1715, Colonia Santa Isabel, Zapopan,
Jalisco C.P. 45110, Mexico; Carretera Isidro
Mazatepec No. 500, Colonia San Agustin,
Tlajomulco de Zuniga, Jalisco C.P. 45645,
Mexico; DOB 12 Dec 1952; POB Badiraguato,
Sinaloa, Mexico; alt. POB Culiacan, Sinaloa,
Mexico; R.F.C. EELE521212B18 (Mexico);
C.U.R.P. EELE521212MSLLRL01 (Mexico)
(individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To:
HACIENDA LAS LIMAS, S.A. DE C.V.;
Linked To: TAXI AEREO NACIONAL DE
CULIACAN, S.A.; Linked To: VILLAS DEL
COLLI S.A. DE C.V.).
6. SOTO RUIZ, Juan Carlos, Calle Las
Flores 117, Colonia Victor Hugo, Zapopan,
Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 27 May 1978; POB
Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; C.U.R.P.
SORJ780527HJCTZN06 (Mexico) (individual)
[SDNTK] (Linked To: ARRENDADORA
TURIN, S.A.; Linked To: DESARROLLOS
BIO GAS, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: ECA
ENERGETICOS, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To:
ENERGETICOS VAGO, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked
To: INMOBILIARIA PROMINENTE, S.A. DE
C.V.; Linked To: OPERADORA ENGO, S.C.;
Linked To: NUEVA TERRA, S. DE R.L. DE
C.V.; Linked To: PRONTO SHOES, S.A. DE
C.V.; Linked To: SERVICIO Y OPERADORA
SANTA ANA, S.A. DE C.V.).
Entities
1. ARRENDADORA TURIN, S.A., Jalisco,
Mexico; Folio Mercantil No. 75413–1
(Mexico) [SDNTK].
2. BARSAT, S.A. DE C.V. (a.k.a. BARZAT),
Lope de Vega No. 232, Arcos Vallarta,
E:\FR\FM\30APN1.SGM
30APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 82 (Friday, April 30, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23038-23042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09049]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0095, 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 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 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.
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, 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 Mirage, S-Series, and K-
Series wheelchair lifts do not fully comply 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 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.
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) has 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
[[Page 23039]]
it on August 11, 2018. ElDorado petitioned NHTSA on August 6, 2018.
Champion Bus, Inc. (Champion) has 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) has 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) has 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 in July 3, 2018, and later
amended it on August 11, 2018. ENC petitioned NHTSA on August 6, 2018.
Daimler Trucks North America, LLC (DTNA) has 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) has 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 August 17, 2018. Navistar petitioned NHTSA on
July 19, 2018 and amended the petition on September 24, 2018.
This notice of receipt of petitions is published under 49 U.S.C.
30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or other
exercises of judgment concerning the merits of the petitions.
II. Equipment and Vehicles Involved: On May 15, 2018, Ricon
submitted a noncompliance report that reported 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, that reported 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 that reported 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 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 that reported 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
[[Page 23040]]
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 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 it's S-Series and K-Series
platform lifts and its Mirage platform lifts do not comply with the
outer barrier interlock requirements of FMVSS 403, S6.10.2.6 when
tested in accordance with the test procedure at S7.5.1.1 and S7.5.1.2.
To that end, the subject lifts, as installed in certain commercial
buses or school buses, do not comply with paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No.
404.
IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S6.10.2.6 of FMVSS No. 403,
includes vertical deployment requirements for a platform lift equipped
with an outer barrier when occupied by portions of the passenger's body
or mobility aid during the operation of the lift. When the platform
stops, the vertical change in distance of the horizontal plane (passing
through the point of contact between the wheelchair test device
wheel(s) and the upper surface of the outer barrier) must not be
greater than 13 mm (0.5 in). Verification of compliance with this
requirement is made using the test procedure specified in paragraph
S7.5.1.
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 performance of the Ricon lifts do 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. These lifts have a retention
belt 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
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, the platform cannot move and the outer barrier will not
deploy in either direction.
(b) The petitioners contend the nonconformance to the outer barrier
interlock provision 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, in actual use the 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 in
S7.5.1.1, once the platform lift is placed at the ground level loading
position with the outer barrier fully deployed, the wheelchair test
device is placed on the platform. Once the occupant is secured by the
buckled retention belt, the length of the belt prevents the occupant
from physically accessing the outer barrier. If the belt is unbuckled,
no power is sent to either the lift or the outer barrier and they will
not be able to move. Therefore, any time an occupant is present on the
platform portion of the lift, the design of the lift protects the
occupant from inadvertent movement of the outer barrier.
(d) Alternatively, the petitioners contend 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. An occupant entering the lift
from the ground level also does not present an increased risk to
safety. As an initial matter, 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. If the belt is
buckled, it stretches across the handrails and the occupant cannot
access the platform because the secured belt blocks the way. Once the
lift is maneuvered to ground level and the outer barrier is deployed,
the lift attendant or private individual must unbuckle the belt to
allow access to the platform. At this point, the electrical circuit is
broken and there is no power to the lift or outer barrier and no risk
to the occupant accessing the lift. Once the occupant is safely
positioned on the platform, the belt is re-buckled and power is
restored.
(e) Per the petitioners, a separate issue is that the test
procedure in S7.5.1.1 provides that when loading from the ground, the
wheelchair test device should be placed on the ground facing the
entrance to the lift. The instruction to have the wheelchair test
facing the entrance to the lift is contrary to the Ricon operator's
manual instructions and 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. As written, the instructions in
the test procedure are inconsistent with the industry standard and
Ricon's operator's manual.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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 425-26. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(f) The petitioners argue that it provides instructions in the
operator's manual describing how an occupant should board the lift and
how an occupant should exit a vehicle. Ricon also provides decals to
indicate to the operator the correct means to load an occupant onto
each wheelchair lift, which are placed on the vertical arms of the lift
and face outward of the vehicle so that they are visible when loading a
passenger onto the lift from the ground level.
[[Page 23041]]
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 belt on the Mirage lifts acts 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, he/she 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.
This concern does not exist in Ricon's design. 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) Per the petitioners, 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 performance of Ricon's platform lifts are 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. While the handrails collapsed when exposed
to forces above the threshold requirement, the handrail did not
collapse or fail catastrophically. The petitioners state 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 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 Agency, in the petitioners' view, 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 note that as with the Braun petition, the
technical noncompliance in the Ricon outer barrier emerges only because
of the revisions to the test procedure implemented in 2012. In actual
use and consistent with the operator's manual, the retention belt
should never be buckled (and it would be illogical to do so) when an
occupant is attempting to traverse the outer barrier. As such, the
noncompliance does not create a real-world safety concern and certainly
not the type of safety concern that the outer barrier interlock was
intended to address the movement of the lift platform while the outer
barrier was occupied.
(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. In that case, 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.\2\ 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. 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 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 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, 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 or private individual 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 without
incident as it relates to the performance of the outer barrier
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 petitioner's 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.
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
[[Page 23042]]
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. 2021-09049 Filed 4-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
