Receipt of Petitions for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 23034-23038 [2021-09050]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
23034
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 82 / Friday, April 30, 2021 / Notices
should back onto the platform when
entering from the ground.’’
3. NHTSA has previously granted
petitions where wheelchair lifts did not
meet the performance requirements of
FMVSS No. 403.
The petitioners argue 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
performance of Ricon’s platform lifts is
consistent with this precedent.
For example, 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 stated in FMVSS No.
403. The Agency recognized that while
the handrails collapsed and did not
meet the displacement requirement,
they did not do so catastrophically. The
Agency explained the failure ‘‘would
not cause the passenger to become
unstable, adversely interact with the
vehicle, or pose a safety concerns that
the handrail requirements were
intended to address’’ and 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. According to the
petitioners, in granting the petition, the
Agency not only ‘‘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,’’ but it also recognized the
noncompliance did not ‘‘pose a safety
concern that the handrail requirements
were intended to address.’’ See 72 FR
19754 (April 19, 2007). Thus, the
Agency has recognized that there are
inherent provisions in FMVSS No. 403
that may not test for the types of safety
risks that can arise in actual use and are
therefore inconsequential.
The petitions further note that as with
the Agency’s finding with the Braun
petition, in actual use, the Classic lifts
do not pose a safety risk. This is because
the inner barrier interlock would sense
the presence of the rear wheels of the
wheelchair occupant who is loaded and
unloaded facing away from the vehicle.
The heavier weight of the rear wheels is
picked up by the sensors and the inner
barrier interlock is activated. The
interlock performance is restricted only
under the set up per the test procedure,
with the front wheels on the inner roll
stop and facing the vehicle.
4. In addition, Navistar has reviewed
warranty records, field reports, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:58 Apr 29, 2021
Jkt 253001
other applicable Navistar system and
determined the following:
a. Navistar has not received any
complaints or other notices from vehicle
owners or others regarding this issue.
b. Navistar is not aware of any
accidents or injuries that have occurred
because of this issue.
c. Navistar is not aware of any
warranty claims for this issue.
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 complete petitions
and all supporting documents are
available by logging onto the Federal
Docket Management System (FDMS)
website at: https://www.regulations.gov
and by following the online search
instructions to locate the docket number
as listed in the title of this notice.
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. 2021–09051 Filed 4–29–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2018–0096, 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 S-Series and
K-Series Titanium wheelchair lifts do
not fully comply with Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
403, Platform Lift Systems for Motor
Vehicles. Due to Ricon’s determination,
Navistar, Inc. on behalf of IC Bus, LLC
(Navistar), and Daimler Trucks North
America (DTNA), who installed the
S-Series and K-Series Titanium
wheelchair lifts in their buses,
determined that certain model year
(MY) 2015–2019 IC and Thomas Built
buses do not comply with FMVSS No.
404, Platform Lift Installation in Motor
Vehicles. Ricon, Navistar, and DTNA,
collectively referred to as the ‘‘the
petitioners,’’ filed the appropriate
noncompliance reports and petitioned
NHTSA for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety. This
document announces receipt of the
petitioners’ petitions.
DATES: The closing date for comments
on the petition is June 1, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit written data, views,
and arguments on this petition.
Comments must refer to the docket
number cited in the title of this notice
and may be submitted by any of the
following methods:
• Mail: Send comments by mail
addressed to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations,
M–30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver comments
by hand to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations,
M–30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. The
Docket Section is open on weekdays
from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except for Federal
Holidays.
• Electronically: Submit comments
electronically by logging onto the
Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at https://
www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\30APN1.SGM
30APN1
23035
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 82 / Friday, April 30, 2021 / Notices
• Comments may also be faxed to
(202) 493–2251.
Comments must be written in the
English language, and be no greater than
15 pages in length, although there is no
limit to the length of necessary
attachments to the comments. If
comments are submitted in hard copy
form, please ensure that two copies are
provided. If you wish to receive
confirmation that comments you have
submitted by mail were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed
postcard along with the comments. Note
that all comments received will be
posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.
All comments and supporting
materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated
above will be filed in the docket and
will be considered. All comments and
supporting materials received after the
closing date will also be filed and will
be considered fully possible.
When the petitions are granted or
denied a notice of the decision will also
be published in the Federal Register
pursuant to the authority indicated at
the end of this notice.
All comments, background
documentation, and supporting
materials submitted to the docket may
be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may
also be viewed on the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by following the
online instructions for accessing the
dockets. The docket ID number for this
petition is shown in the heading of this
notice.
DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477–78).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: Ricon determined that
certain S-Series and K-Series Titanium
wheelchair lifts do not fully comply
with paragraph S6.10.2.4 of FMVSS No.
403, Platform Lift Systems for Motor
Vehicles (49 CFR 571.403) and filed a
noncompliance report dated July 4,
2018, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. Ricon
subsequently petitioned NHTSA on
August 1, 2018, pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part
556, for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of
49 U.S.C. chapter 301 on the basis that
this noncompliance is inconsequential
as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
Because of Ricon’s determination,
Navistar and DTNA, who installed the
S-Series and K-Series Titanium
wheelchair lifts in their buses,
determined that certain model year
(MY) 2015–2019 IC and Thomas Built
buses do not comply with paragraph
S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404, Platform Lift
Installation in Motor Vehicles (49 CFR
571.404). Navistar filed a
noncompliance report dated August 17,
2018, and DTNA filed a noncompliance
report dated August 23, 2018, pursuant
to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports. Subsequently, Navistar
petitioned NHTSA on August 31, 2018,
and DTNA petitioned NHTSA on
September 21, 2018, for an exemption
from the notification and remedy
requirements of 49 U.S.C. chapter 301
on the basis that this noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part
556, Exemption for Inconsequential
Defect or Noncompliance.
This notice of receipt of the
petitioners’ petitions is published under
49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not
represent any agency decision or other
exercise of judgment concerning the
merits of the petition.
II. Equipment and Vehicles Involved:
On July 4, 2018, Ricon submitted a
noncompliance report and then on
August 1, 2018, subsequently submitted
a petition that reported approximately
4,375 S-Series and K-Series Titanium
wheelchair lifts, manufactured between
October 2, 2012, and May 9, 2018, are
potentially involved.
In concert with Ricon’s filings,
Navistar and DTNA who installed the SSeries and K-Series Titanium
wheelchair lifts sold by Ricon in their
vehicles also filed noncompliance
reports and inconsequential
noncompliance petitions.
Appropriately, Navistar and DTNA
determined the following vehicles are
potentially involved:
Approximately 631 MY 2015–2019 IC
CE buses, manufactured between April
10, 2014, and May 9, 2018.
Approximately 84 MY 2015–2019
Thomas Built Series Saf-T-Liner C2 and
HDX buses, manufactured between June
16, 2014, and January 11, 2018.
Accordingly, Ricon reported that
4,375 S-Series and K-Series Titanium
wheelchair lifts to be potentially
involved while the OEMs reported, in
total, 715 vehicles with the
noncompliant S-Series and K-Series
Titanium wheelchair lifts potentially
involved. NHTSA made inquiries to
Ricon to try to reconcile the difference
in number of lifts reported versus the
number of vehicles reported on multiple
occasions. Then in an email dated June
10, 2020, Ricon provided a table that
reported that 4,481 S-Series and KSeries Titanium wheelchair lifts were
produced, with 312 going to dealers,
4,129 going to OEMs, and 40 to its
parent company, Wabtec Corporation
(Wabtec). Below is a table that outlines
the different numbers as reported by
Ricon, by date, for the S-Series and KSeries Titanium wheelchair lifts and the
total number of vehicles as reported by
the OEMs.
RICON S-SERIES AND K-SERIES TITANIUM WHEELCHAIR LIFTS POTENTIALLY INVOLVED
Ricon’s 7/4/18
reporting
Ricon’s 6/10/
20
reporting
Total OEM
573
reporting
Dealers .........................................................................................................................................
OEMs ...........................................................................................................................................
Wabtec * .......................................................................................................................................
........................
........................
........................
312
4,129
40
........................
........................
........................
Total ......................................................................................................................................
4,375
4,481
715
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
* 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:58 Apr 29, 2021
Jkt 253001
numbers. Based on current numbers as
shown in the table above, there are still
3,766 lifts that have not been accounted
for by sales to vehicle manufacturers
and Ricon believes that these lifts were
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
distributed and sold through other
channels. Despite several meetings and
communication with Ricon directed
toward identifying their ultimate
destination, NHTSA has not been able
E:\FR\FM\30APN1.SGM
30APN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
23036
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 82 / Friday, April 30, 2021 / Notices
to determine where and how the lifts
not sold to vehicle manufacturer were
sold. NHTSA also feels it is prudent to
emphasize that any decision on these
petitions does not relieve vehicle or
equipment distributors and dealers of
the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for
introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant lifts and vehicles
under their control after the petitioners
notified them that the subject
noncompliance existed.
III. Noncompliance: Ricon explains
that its Titanium S-Series and K-Series
platform lifts do not comply with the
inner barrier interlock requirements of
FMVSS 403, S6.10.2.6 when tested in
accordance with the test procedure at
S7.6.1. The subject lifts, as installed in
certain commercial buses and school
buses, do not comply with paragraph
S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404.
IV. Requirements: Paragraph S6.10.2.4
of FMVSS No. 403, includes the
requirements relevant to the
deployment of the inner roll stop. When
the platform reaches a level where the
inner roll stop is designed to deploy, the
platform must stop unless the inner roll
stop has deployed. Verification with
this requirement is made by performing
the test procedure specified in S7.6.
Paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404,
includes lift-equipped buses, school
buses, and MPVs other than motor
homes with a GVWR greater than 4,536
kg (10,000 lb.) must be equipped with
a public use lift certified as meeting
FMVSS No. 403.
V. Summary of Petitions: The
following views and arguments
presented in this section, ‘‘V. Summary
of Petitions,’’ are the views and
arguments provided by the petitioners.
They have not been evaluated by the
Agency and do not reflect the views of
the Agency. The petitioners described
the subject noncompliance and stated
their belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety.
In support of their petitions, the
petitioners submitted the following
arguments:
1. The performance of the Ricon lifts
do not create an increased risk to safety:
(a) The petitioners state the S-Series
and K-Series Titanium lifts are
commercial application lifts and are
public use lifts. The inner barrier is
designed to lay flat for the lift occupant
to easily transition from the platform
into the vehicle and vice versa. When
the inner barrier is deployed (i.e. raised
upright), it prevents the occupant from
moving off the platform edge at the start
of the vehicle. The inner barrier
interlock on the Titanium units utilizes
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:58 Apr 29, 2021
Jkt 253001
a rod which travels across the front of
the base plate. There are plastic shoe
levers at three different locations in the
center and towards each side of the
inner barrier. At the end of the rod in
front of the vertical arm is a torsion
spring that activates a micro switch. The
design of the lift operates so that the
closer that weight is placed to the hinge
of the inner barrier bridge plate, the
further away it is located from the
torsion spring and micro switch when
the bridge plate is down. More force is
required to move the opposite end of the
bridge plate the same vertical distance
to depress the torsion spring that
activates the micro switch. Because the
torsion spring is weight sensing, if the
single front wheel of the wheelchair test
device is located within 8 inches of the
inner barrier hinge, there is insufficient
weight sensed to activate the inner
barrier interlock.
(b) Per the petitioners, the operation
of the lifts does not cause an increased
risk to safety. As an initial matter, the
position of the wheelchair test device
specified in the test procedure is
inconsistent with the appropriate use of
the lifts and does not pose a safety risk
in real-world operation. The test
procedure at S7.6.2 provides that the
platform should be maneuvered to
vehicle floor level loading position and
the wheelchair test device should be
placed on the platform with the front
wheel of the wheelchair test device
facing the vehicle. The instruction in
the test procedure to set up the
wheelchair test device facing the
entrance to the lift is contrary to the
instructions provided in the Ricon
operator’s manual instructions and
contrary to industry practice. The
industry standard practice is to load
wheelchair occupants onto a lift with
their back to the vehicle. Loading in this
direction prevents injury to the
occupant’s lower extremities and feet.
The petitioners note that as written, the
instructions in the test procedure are
inconsistent with the industry standard
and Ricon’s operator’s manual.1 An
1 The Titanium units are public use lifts. During
the FMVSS No. 403 rulemaking process, a
manufacturer noted that portions of the rule had
testing conducted in one direction when the
owner’s manual provided for a different loading
direction. See 67 FR 42526. The manufacturer took
the position that such inconsistencies were contrary
to the requirements of the ADA. In response,
NHTSA concluded that since the ADA does not
apply to private use lifts, the loading requirements
were not inconsistent with the ADA. Here,
however, the Ricon lifts are used as public use lifts.
Although the ADA states that the lift shall permit
for boarding and unboarding in both directions the
industry practice and Ricon’s (and other
manufacturers) instructions provide for boarding in
the reverse as an added level of occupant
protection.
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
excerpt from the operator’s manual for
the Titanium lifts describes how an
occupant should board the lift (facing
away from the vehicle). Similar
instructions are provided for an
occupant exiting the vehicle that also
indicate that the occupant should face
outward and away from the vehicle:
(c) The petitioners state it uses decals
to indicate to the operator the correct
means to load an occupant onto each
wheelchair lift. The decals are placed on
the vertical arms of the lift and face
outward of the vehicle so that they are
visible to the lift operator when loading
a passenger onto the lift from ground
level.
(d) Ricon next contends there is no
increased risk to safety because placing
a single front wheel on the inner roll
stop, as required by the test procedure,
is not a natural position for a wheelchair
to enter and exit the lift. Even assuming
an occupant was loaded and unloaded
in the reverse position and contrary to
the instructions provided in the owner’s
manual, the wheelchair must be
manipulated to achieve a position
where one front wheel is placed on the
inner roll stop. To do this, the
wheelchair test device must be shifted
back and forth (i.e. brought onto the
inner roll stop, moved backwards and
moved forwards at an angle) multiple
times to position the test device so that
only one front wheel is placed on the
inner roll stop. This backwards and
forwards shifting motion is not a natural
motion and would not occur in ordinary
use. In ordinary use, the wheelchair
occupant enters and exits the vehicle
with the occupant facing the street.
Further, even if the occupant were to
enter the lift backwards (i.e. facing the
vehicle, per the test procedure), the
platform lift is wide enough for the
average sized wheelchair and scooter to
fully roll onto the platform in a single
motion so that the single front wheel of
a wheelchair would not contact the
inner roll stop within 8 inches of the
hinge. The Titanium units (as with all
Ricon’s lifts) meet the requirements for
ADA standard vehicle door widths.
Consequently, the Titanium units are
wide enough for the average sized
wheelchair and scooter to roll onto the
lift in a single motion.
(e) The petitioners add that these lifts
incorporate a retention belt system as
part of the platform lift design. The
retention belt consists of durable
webbing which is attached to and when
belted, extends across each of the
handrails. The retention belt serves dual
purposes and is a redundant safety
feature. The retention belt is a means to
physically secure an occupant within
the lift. In addition, the retention belt
E:\FR\FM\30APN1.SGM
30APN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 82 / Friday, April 30, 2021 / Notices
acts as an electrical interlock that is
linked to the operation of the lift. If the
retention belt is buckled, the electrical
circuit is closed and the platform and
outer barrier can operate when the
buttons on the operator’s pendant are
pressed. If the belt is not buckled, the
electrical circuit is broken and there is
no power sent to any part of the lift and
the platform cannot move and the inner
roll stop will not deploy. However, in
actual use outside of the test
environment, the retention belt would
not be buckled (and the lift would not
be powered) when the occupant is
attempting to enter the vehicle from the
ground. Consistent with the operator’s
instructions provided above, the
retention belt is unbuckled as the
occupant is entering the vehicle so that
even if a single front wheel was present
within 8 inches of the inner roll stop
hinge, there is no safety consequence
because the lift is not powered.
(f) The petitioners contend that the
noncompliance with the inner barrier
interlock arises only when the lifts are
tested with one front wheel of the
wheelchair test device located within 8
inches from the hinge and when the
wheelchair is manipulated in the
manner provided in the test procedure.
When the lift is used consistent with the
instructions provided with the
operator’s manual, the occupant enters
and exits the lift facing away from the
vehicle so that the two rear wheels of
the wheelchair contact with the inner
roll stop. Consistent with real-world use
(and as demonstrated through the
product’s performance in the field),
there is no safety risk because the
weight of the rear wheels is sensed by
the torsion spring so that the interlock
is activated.
2. NHTSA has previously granted
petitions where wheelchair lifts did not
meet the performance requirements of
FMVSS No. 403.
(a) In support of the petition, the
petitioners contend the Agency has
granted inconsequentiality petitions
where the manufacturer has not met the
performance requirements of FMVSS
No. 403, finding that the noncompliance
did not pose an increased risk to safety
as the lift is used in the real world. Per
The petitioners, the performance of their
platform lifts is consistent with this
precedent.
(b) For example, the petitioners note
the Agency granted a petition for
decision of inconsequential
noncompliance submitted by The Braun
Corporation (Braun) where the lift
handrails did not meet the values for
deflection force. While the handrails
collapsed when exposed to forces above
the threshold requirement, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:58 Apr 29, 2021
Jkt 253001
handrail∼ did not collapse or fail
catastrophically. Per The petitioners, the
Agency explained that its concern in
instituting the deflection force
requirement was the possibility of a
catastrophic failure of the handrails
which would expose the occupant to a
risk of injury. In granting the petition,
the petitioners state the Agency
‘‘anticipated that future tests will
specify placement and direction of
forces that will be more focused to
address worst-case handrail
displacement and real-world safety
problems.’’ The petitioners further claim
the Agency recognized the
noncompliance, in this case, did not
‘‘pose a safety concern that the handrail
requirements were intended to
address.’’ See 72 FR 19754 (April 19,
2007).
(c) The petitioners argue that as with
the Agency’s findings with the Braun
petition, in actual use and consistent
with the operator’s manual, the
Titanium units do not pose a safety risk
in the real world. This is because the
inner barrier interlock would sense the
presence of the rear wheels of the
wheelchair occupant who is loaded and
unloaded facing away from the vehicle.
The heavier weight of the rear wheels is
picked up by the sensors and the inner
barrier interlock is activated. The
interlock performance is restricted only
under the set up per the test procedure,
with a single front wheel facing the
vehicle.
(d) The petitioners contend that
NHTSA has also granted an
inconsequentiality petition where the
deployed wheelchair retention device
was unable to withstand the required
1,600 pounds of force. In that case, the
Maxon Industry Inc. (Maxon) lifts
included some designs where the outer
barrier served as the wheelchair
retention device and other designs with
both a belt retention device and an outer
barrier. The belt retention device also
served as an electronic interlock that
precluded the lift from moving up or
down unless buckled.2 The petitioners
states the Agency granted the petition as
to the units which incorporated the
retention belt and noncompliant outer
barrier, finding that such a design did
not create an increased risk to safety
since the belt’s operation precluded the
lift from moving and prevented the
stated safety concern. Per The
petitioners, the Agency denied the
petition as to those units without the
retention belt, reasoning that the lift
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 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
23037
occupant would only be relying upon a
noncompliant outer barrier for
protection. See 72 FR 28759 (May 22,
2007).
(e) The petitioners note that the
Titanium units incorporate a retention
belt that completely prevents lift
electrical operation unless the retention
belt is buckled.3 The retention belt
would not be buckled, when the
occupant is attempting to enter the
vehicle, so that even in the unlikely
event that a single front wheel of the
wheelchair were placed 8 inches or less
from the inner barrier hinge, per the test
procedure, the lift would not be
energized and the lift could not move at
all. The petitioners argue that in
granting the Maxon petition, the Agency
recognized and accepted that the
retention belt acted as a redundant
safety feature precluded any safety risk.
The belt interlock in the Ricon lifts as
well as the operator’s manual
instructions create similar redundancies
and offer equivalent protection to
occupants.
(f) Finally, the petitioners argue the
environment in which these lifts are
used diminishes any potential risk to
safety. All the lifts at issue are for
commercial applications and operate as
a public use lifts. In this context, there
will be a lift attendant present to
monitor the lift to ensure the occupant
enters and exits the lift safely. When the
lift attendant for the public use lift is
following the operator’s manual, there
should not be an instance where the lift
platform is powered and the occupant is
unrestrained. Ricon has used this same
design lift since the start of production
for decades and is not aware of any
claims or injury involving the
performance of the inner roll stop
interlock.
The petitioners concluded by
expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety, and that
their petitions to be exempted from
providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49
U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49
U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
The petitioners’ complete petitions
and all supporting documents are
available by logging onto the Federal
Docket Management System (FDMS)
website at: https://www.regulations.gov
and by following the online search
instructions to locate the docket number
as listed in the title of this notice.
3 The Ricon lifts incorporate a means of manually
descending the lift to allow a rider to exit the
vehicle in the event of a lift malfunction.
E:\FR\FM\30APN1.SGM
30APN1
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
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 82 (Friday, April 30, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23034-23038]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09050]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0096, Notice 1]
Receipt of Petitions for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Receipt of petitions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Ricon Corporation (Ricon), has determined that certain S-
Series and K-Series Titanium wheelchair lifts do not fully comply with
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 403, Platform Lift
Systems for Motor Vehicles. Due to Ricon's determination, Navistar,
Inc. on behalf of IC Bus, LLC (Navistar), and Daimler Trucks North
America (DTNA), who installed the S-Series and K-Series Titanium
wheelchair lifts in their buses, determined that certain model year
(MY) 2015-2019 IC and Thomas Built buses do not comply with FMVSS No.
404, Platform Lift Installation in Motor Vehicles. Ricon, Navistar, and
DTNA, collectively referred to as the ``the petitioners,'' filed the
appropriate noncompliance reports and petitioned NHTSA for a decision
that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety. This document announces receipt of the
petitioners' petitions.
DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is June 1, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket number cited in the title of this notice and may be submitted by
any of the following methods:
Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.
Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except for Federal Holidays.
Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
[[Page 23035]]
Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard along with
the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided.
All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered fully possible.
When the petitions are granted or denied a notice of the decision
will also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the
authority indicated at the end of this notice.
All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: Ricon determined that certain S-Series and K-Series
Titanium wheelchair lifts do not fully comply with paragraph S6.10.2.4
of FMVSS No. 403, Platform Lift Systems for Motor Vehicles (49 CFR
571.403) and filed a noncompliance report dated July 4, 2018, pursuant
to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports. Ricon subsequently petitioned NHTSA on August 1, 2018,
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, for an
exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety.
Because of Ricon's determination, Navistar and DTNA, who installed
the S-Series and K-Series Titanium wheelchair lifts in their buses,
determined that certain model year (MY) 2015-2019 IC and Thomas Built
buses do not comply with paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404, Platform
Lift Installation in Motor Vehicles (49 CFR 571.404). Navistar filed a
noncompliance report dated August 17, 2018, and DTNA filed a
noncompliance report dated August 23, 2018, pursuant to 49 CFR part
573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Subsequently,
Navistar petitioned NHTSA on August 31, 2018, and DTNA petitioned NHTSA
on September 21, 2018, for an exemption from the notification and
remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556,
Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
This notice of receipt of the petitioners' petitions is published
under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency
decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the
petition.
II. Equipment and Vehicles Involved: On July 4, 2018, Ricon
submitted a noncompliance report and then on August 1, 2018,
subsequently submitted a petition that reported approximately 4,375 S-
Series and K-Series Titanium wheelchair lifts, manufactured between
October 2, 2012, and May 9, 2018, are potentially involved.
In concert with Ricon's filings, Navistar and DTNA who installed
the S-Series and K-Series Titanium wheelchair lifts sold by Ricon in
their vehicles also filed noncompliance reports and inconsequential
noncompliance petitions. Appropriately, Navistar and DTNA determined
the following vehicles are potentially involved:
Approximately 631 MY 2015-2019 IC CE buses, manufactured between
April 10, 2014, and May 9, 2018.
Approximately 84 MY 2015-2019 Thomas Built Series Saf-T-Liner C2
and HDX buses, manufactured between June 16, 2014, and January 11,
2018.
Accordingly, Ricon reported that 4,375 S-Series and K-Series
Titanium wheelchair lifts to be potentially involved while the OEMs
reported, in total, 715 vehicles with the noncompliant S-Series and K-
Series Titanium wheelchair lifts potentially involved. NHTSA made
inquiries to Ricon to try to reconcile the difference in number of
lifts reported versus the number of vehicles reported on multiple
occasions. Then in an email dated June 10, 2020, Ricon provided a table
that reported that 4,481 S-Series and K-Series Titanium wheelchair
lifts were produced, with 312 going to dealers, 4,129 going to OEMs,
and 40 to its parent company, Wabtec Corporation (Wabtec). Below is a
table that outlines the different numbers as reported by Ricon, by
date, for the S-Series and K-Series Titanium wheelchair lifts and the
total number of vehicles as reported by the OEMs.
Ricon S-Series and K-Series Titanium Wheelchair Lifts Potentially Involved
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ricon's 7/4/18 Ricon's 6/10/ Total OEM 573
reporting 20 reporting reporting
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dealers......................................................... .............. 312 ..............
OEMs............................................................ .............. 4,129 ..............
Wabtec *........................................................ .............. 40 ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 4,375 4,481 715
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Ricon is a subsidiary of WABTEC.
The total number of vehicles reported by the OEMs has not changed
and the number S-Series and K-Series wheelchair lifts as reported by
Ricon on June 10, 2020, are the most up-to-date numbers. Based on
current numbers as shown in the table above, there are still 3,766
lifts that have not been accounted for by sales to vehicle
manufacturers and Ricon believes that these lifts were distributed and
sold through other channels. Despite several meetings and communication
with Ricon directed toward identifying their ultimate destination,
NHTSA has not been able
[[Page 23036]]
to determine where and how the lifts not sold to vehicle manufacturer
were sold. NHTSA also feels it is prudent to emphasize that any
decision on these petitions does not relieve vehicle or equipment
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant lifts and vehicles under their control
after the petitioners notified them that the subject noncompliance
existed.
III. Noncompliance: Ricon explains that its Titanium S-Series and
K-Series platform lifts do not comply with the inner barrier interlock
requirements of FMVSS 403, S6.10.2.6 when tested in accordance with the
test procedure at S7.6.1. The subject lifts, as installed in certain
commercial buses and school buses, do not comply with paragraph S4.1.1
of FMVSS No. 404.
IV. Requirements: Paragraph S6.10.2.4 of FMVSS No. 403, includes
the requirements relevant to the deployment of the inner roll stop.
When the platform reaches a level where the inner roll stop is designed
to deploy, the platform must stop unless the inner roll stop has
deployed. Verification with this requirement is made by performing the
test procedure specified in S7.6.
Paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404, includes lift-equipped buses,
school buses, and MPVs other than motor homes with a GVWR greater than
4,536 kg (10,000 lb.) must be equipped with a public use lift certified
as meeting FMVSS No. 403.
V. Summary of Petitions: The following views and arguments
presented in this section, ``V. Summary of Petitions,'' are the views
and arguments provided by the petitioners. They have not been evaluated
by the Agency and do not reflect the views of the Agency. The
petitioners described the subject noncompliance and stated their belief
that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety.
In support of their petitions, the petitioners submitted the
following arguments:
1. The performance of the Ricon lifts do not create an increased
risk to safety:
(a) The petitioners state the S-Series and K-Series Titanium lifts
are commercial application lifts and are public use lifts. The inner
barrier is designed to lay flat for the lift occupant to easily
transition from the platform into the vehicle and vice versa. When the
inner barrier is deployed (i.e. raised upright), it prevents the
occupant from moving off the platform edge at the start of the vehicle.
The inner barrier interlock on the Titanium units utilizes a rod which
travels across the front of the base plate. There are plastic shoe
levers at three different locations in the center and towards each side
of the inner barrier. At the end of the rod in front of the vertical
arm is a torsion spring that activates a micro switch. The design of
the lift operates so that the closer that weight is placed to the hinge
of the inner barrier bridge plate, the further away it is located from
the torsion spring and micro switch when the bridge plate is down. More
force is required to move the opposite end of the bridge plate the same
vertical distance to depress the torsion spring that activates the
micro switch. Because the torsion spring is weight sensing, if the
single front wheel of the wheelchair test device is located within 8
inches of the inner barrier hinge, there is insufficient weight sensed
to activate the inner barrier interlock.
(b) Per the petitioners, the operation of the lifts does not cause
an increased risk to safety. As an initial matter, the position of the
wheelchair test device specified in the test procedure is inconsistent
with the appropriate use of the lifts and does not pose a safety risk
in real-world operation. The test procedure at S7.6.2 provides that the
platform should be maneuvered to vehicle floor level loading position
and the wheelchair test device should be placed on the platform with
the front wheel of the wheelchair test device facing the vehicle. The
instruction in the test procedure to set up the wheelchair test device
facing the entrance to the lift is contrary to the instructions
provided in the Ricon operator's manual instructions and contrary to
industry practice. The industry standard practice is to load wheelchair
occupants onto a lift with their back to the vehicle. Loading in this
direction prevents injury to the occupant's lower extremities and feet.
The petitioners note that as written, the instructions in the test
procedure are inconsistent with the industry standard and Ricon's
operator's manual.\1\ An excerpt from the operator's manual for the
Titanium lifts describes how an occupant should board the lift (facing
away from the vehicle). Similar instructions are provided for an
occupant exiting the vehicle that also indicate that the occupant
should face outward and away from the vehicle:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Titanium units are public use lifts. During the FMVSS
No. 403 rulemaking process, a manufacturer noted that portions of
the rule had testing conducted in one direction when the owner's
manual provided for a different loading direction. See 67 FR 42526.
The manufacturer took the position that such inconsistencies were
contrary to the requirements of the ADA. In response, NHTSA
concluded that since the ADA does not apply to private use lifts,
the loading requirements were not inconsistent with the ADA. Here,
however, the Ricon lifts are used as public use lifts. Although the
ADA states that the lift shall permit for boarding and unboarding in
both directions the industry practice and Ricon's (and other
manufacturers) instructions provide for boarding in the reverse as
an added level of occupant protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) The petitioners state it uses decals to indicate to the
operator the correct means to load an occupant onto each wheelchair
lift. The decals are placed on the vertical arms of the lift and face
outward of the vehicle so that they are visible to the lift operator
when loading a passenger onto the lift from ground level.
(d) Ricon next contends there is no increased risk to safety
because placing a single front wheel on the inner roll stop, as
required by the test procedure, is not a natural position for a
wheelchair to enter and exit the lift. Even assuming an occupant was
loaded and unloaded in the reverse position and contrary to the
instructions provided in the owner's manual, the wheelchair must be
manipulated to achieve a position where one front wheel is placed on
the inner roll stop. To do this, the wheelchair test device must be
shifted back and forth (i.e. brought onto the inner roll stop, moved
backwards and moved forwards at an angle) multiple times to position
the test device so that only one front wheel is placed on the inner
roll stop. This backwards and forwards shifting motion is not a natural
motion and would not occur in ordinary use. In ordinary use, the
wheelchair occupant enters and exits the vehicle with the occupant
facing the street. Further, even if the occupant were to enter the lift
backwards (i.e. facing the vehicle, per the test procedure), the
platform lift is wide enough for the average sized wheelchair and
scooter to fully roll onto the platform in a single motion so that the
single front wheel of a wheelchair would not contact the inner roll
stop within 8 inches of the hinge. The Titanium units (as with all
Ricon's lifts) meet the requirements for ADA standard vehicle door
widths. Consequently, the Titanium units are wide enough for the
average sized wheelchair and scooter to roll onto the lift in a single
motion.
(e) The petitioners add that these lifts incorporate a retention
belt system as part of the platform lift design. The retention belt
consists of durable webbing which is attached to and when belted,
extends across each of the handrails. The retention belt serves dual
purposes and is a redundant safety feature. The retention belt is a
means to physically secure an occupant within the lift. In addition,
the retention belt
[[Page 23037]]
acts as an electrical interlock that is linked to the operation of the
lift. If the retention belt is buckled, the electrical circuit is
closed and the platform and outer barrier can operate when the buttons
on the operator's pendant are pressed. If the belt is not buckled, the
electrical circuit is broken and there is no power sent to any part of
the lift and the platform cannot move and the inner roll stop will not
deploy. However, in actual use outside of the test environment, the
retention belt would not be buckled (and the lift would not be powered)
when the occupant is attempting to enter the vehicle from the ground.
Consistent with the operator's instructions provided above, the
retention belt is unbuckled as the occupant is entering the vehicle so
that even if a single front wheel was present within 8 inches of the
inner roll stop hinge, there is no safety consequence because the lift
is not powered.
(f) The petitioners contend that the noncompliance with the inner
barrier interlock arises only when the lifts are tested with one front
wheel of the wheelchair test device located within 8 inches from the
hinge and when the wheelchair is manipulated in the manner provided in
the test procedure. When the lift is used consistent with the
instructions provided with the operator's manual, the occupant enters
and exits the lift facing away from the vehicle so that the two rear
wheels of the wheelchair contact with the inner roll stop. Consistent
with real-world use (and as demonstrated through the product's
performance in the field), there is no safety risk because the weight
of the rear wheels is sensed by the torsion spring so that the
interlock is activated.
2. NHTSA has previously granted petitions where wheelchair lifts
did not meet the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 403.
(a) In support of the petition, the petitioners contend the Agency
has granted inconsequentiality petitions where the manufacturer has not
met the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 403, finding that the
noncompliance did not pose an increased risk to safety as the lift is
used in the real world. Per The petitioners, the performance of their
platform lifts is consistent with this precedent.
(b) For example, the petitioners note the Agency granted a petition
for decision of inconsequential noncompliance submitted by The Braun
Corporation (Braun) where the lift handrails did not meet the values
for deflection force. While the handrails collapsed when exposed to
forces above the threshold requirement, the handrail~ did not collapse
or fail catastrophically. Per The petitioners, the Agency explained
that its concern in instituting the deflection force requirement was
the possibility of a catastrophic failure of the handrails which would
expose the occupant to a risk of injury. In granting the petition, the
petitioners state the Agency ``anticipated that future tests will
specify placement and direction of forces that will be more focused to
address worst-case handrail displacement and real-world safety
problems.'' The petitioners further claim the Agency recognized the
noncompliance, in this case, did not ``pose a safety concern that the
handrail requirements were intended to address.'' See 72 FR 19754
(April 19, 2007).
(c) The petitioners argue that as with the Agency's findings with
the Braun petition, in actual use and consistent with the operator's
manual, the Titanium units do not pose a safety risk in the real world.
This is because the inner barrier interlock would sense the presence of
the rear wheels of the wheelchair occupant who is loaded and unloaded
facing away from the vehicle. The heavier weight of the rear wheels is
picked up by the sensors and the inner barrier interlock is activated.
The interlock performance is restricted only under the set up per the
test procedure, with a single front wheel facing the vehicle.
(d) The petitioners contend that NHTSA has also granted an
inconsequentiality petition where the deployed wheelchair retention
device was unable to withstand the required 1,600 pounds of force. In
that case, the Maxon Industry Inc. (Maxon) lifts included some designs
where the outer barrier served as the wheelchair retention device and
other designs with both a belt retention device and an outer barrier.
The belt retention device also served as an electronic interlock that
precluded the lift from moving up or down unless buckled.\2\ The
petitioners states the Agency granted the petition as to the units
which incorporated the retention belt and noncompliant outer barrier,
finding that such a design did not create an increased risk to safety
since the belt's operation precluded the lift from moving and prevented
the stated safety concern. Per The petitioners, the Agency denied the
petition as to those units without the retention belt, reasoning that
the lift occupant would only be relying upon a noncompliant outer
barrier for protection. See 72 FR 28759 (May 22, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Ricon is aware of multiple manufacturers that use a belt
interlock that functions in the same or similar manner to restrict
the operation of the platform lift.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) The petitioners note that the Titanium units incorporate a
retention belt that completely prevents lift electrical operation
unless the retention belt is buckled.\3\ The retention belt would not
be buckled, when the occupant is attempting to enter the vehicle, so
that even in the unlikely event that a single front wheel of the
wheelchair were placed 8 inches or less from the inner barrier hinge,
per the test procedure, the lift would not be energized and the lift
could not move at all. The petitioners argue that in granting the Maxon
petition, the Agency recognized and accepted that the retention belt
acted as a redundant safety feature precluded any safety risk. The belt
interlock in the Ricon lifts as well as the operator's manual
instructions create similar redundancies and offer equivalent
protection to occupants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Ricon lifts incorporate a means of manually descending
the lift to allow a rider to exit the vehicle in the event of a lift
malfunction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(f) Finally, the petitioners argue the environment in which these
lifts are used diminishes any potential risk to safety. All the lifts
at issue are for commercial applications and operate as a public use
lifts. In this context, there will be a lift attendant present to
monitor the lift to ensure the occupant enters and exits the lift
safely. When the lift attendant for the public use lift is following
the operator's manual, there should not be an instance where the lift
platform is powered and the occupant is unrestrained. Ricon has used
this same design lift since the start of production for decades and is
not aware of any claims or injury involving the performance of the
inner roll stop interlock.
The petitioners concluded by expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that their petitions to be exempted from providing notification of
the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
The petitioners' complete petitions and all supporting documents
are available by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at: https://www.regulations.gov and by following the
online search instructions to locate the docket number as listed in the
title of this notice.
[[Page 23038]]
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
these petitions only applies to the subject lifts and buses that the
petitioners no longer controlled at the time it determined that the
noncompliance existed. However, any decision of these petitions does
not relieve vehicle or equipment distributors and dealers of the
prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery
for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant lifts and
buses under their control after the petitioners notified them that the
subject noncompliance existed.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2021-09050 Filed 4-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
