Grant of Petitions for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 65708-65713 [2024-17818]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
65708
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 155 / Monday, August 12, 2024 / Notices
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to
request the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) to approve a request for
an extension without change to an
existing information collection: Survey
of FTA Stakeholders.
Comments must be submitted
before October 11, 2024.
DATES:
To ensure that your
comments are not entered more than
once into the docket, submit comments
identified by the docket number by only
one of the following methods:
1. Website: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments
on the U.S. Government electronic
docket site. All electronic submissions
must be made to the U.S. Government
electronic docket site at https://
www.regulations.gov. Commenters
should follow the directions below for
mailed and hand-delivered comments.
2. Fax: 202–366–7951.
3. Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Docket Operations, M–30,
West Building, Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, Washington, DC 20590–0001.
4. Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Docket Operations, M–30,
West Building, Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, Washington, DC 20590–0001
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Instructions: You must include the
agency name and docket number for this
notice at the beginning of your
comments. Submit two copies of your
comments if you submit them by mail.
For confirmation that FTA has received
your comments, include a selfaddressed stamped postcard. Note that
all comments received, including any
personal information, will be posted
and will be available to internet users,
without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov. You may review
DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement
in the Federal Register published April
11, 2000, (65 FR 19477), or you may
visit https://www.regulations.gov.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents and
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov at any time.
Background documents and comments
received may also be viewed at the U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Docket
Operations, M–30, West Building,
Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590–0001 between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 09, 2024
Jkt 262001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alexandra Galanti at 202–366–5129 or
alexandra.galanti@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Interested
parties are invited to send comments
regarding any aspect of this information
collection, including: (1) the necessity
and utility of the information collection
for the proper performance of the
functions of the FTA; (2) the accuracy
of the estimated burden; (3) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the collected information; and (4)
ways to minimize the collection burden
without reducing the quality of the
collected information. Comments
submitted in response to this notice will
be summarized and/or included in the
request for
OMB approval of this information
collection.
Title: Survey of FTA Stakeholders.
OMB Number: 2132–0564.
Background: The Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) is requesting an
extension without change to the
customer service survey of its
stakeholders. FTA is required to identify
its stakeholders and address how the
agency will provide services in a
manner that seeks to streamline service
delivery and improve the experience of
its customers. FTA is seeking a threeyear approval of an existing information
collection that will allow FTA to collect
data from transit agencies, states, tribal
governments, and metropolitan
planning organizations. FTA will utilize
the survey to assess how its services are
perceived by its customers, learn about
opportunities for improvement and
establish goals to measure results. The
data captured from the survey will
provide this information and enable
FTA to make improvements where
necessary. The survey will be limited to
data collections that solicit voluntary
opinions and will not involve
information that is required by
regulations. Respondents are split into
two groups. Group A includes Chief
Executive Officers (CEOs) and other
executive leaders of transit agencies,
state DOTs, and other FTA stakeholders.
Group B includes unit supervisors and
professional staff such as engineers,
urban planners and budget analysts
from the same organizations. FTA will
utilize the survey to assess how its
services are perceived by its customers,
learn about opportunities for
improvement and establish goals to
measure results. The information
obtained from the survey will provide
insights into customer or stakeholder
perceptions, experiences and
expectations; provide an early warning
of issues with service; or focus attention
PO 00000
Frm 00128
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
on areas where communication, training
or changes in operations might improve
delivery of products or services.
Respondents: State Departments of
Transportation (DOTs), Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (MPOs), Transit
Authorities, States, and Local
Government Units, Indian Tribes.
Estimated Total Number of
Respondents: 8,177.
Estimated Total Number of
Responses: 8,177.
Estimated Total Annual Burden:
1,022 hours.
Frequency: Biennial.
Kusum Dhyani,
Director, Office of Management Planning.
[FR Doc. 2024–17850 Filed 8–9–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–57–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2018–0095, Notice 2]
Grant of Petitions for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petitions.
AGENCY:
Ricon Corporation (Ricon),
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
decision that the subject noncompliance
is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety. This document
announces the grant of the petitioners’
petitions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ahmad Barnes, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
(202) 366–7236 Ahmad.Barnes@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: Ricon determined that
certain Mirage, S-Series, and K-Series
wheelchair lifts do not fully comply
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM
12AUN1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 155 / Monday, August 12, 2024 / Notices
with paragraph S6.10.2.6 of FMVSS No.
403, Platform Lift Systems for Motor
Vehicles (49 CFR 571.403) and filed
noncompliance reports, dated May 15,
2018, and May 25, 2018, (and later
amended their May 15, 2018,
noncompliance report on June 12, 2019)
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports. Ricon subsequently petitioned
NHTSA on June 13, 2018, for an
exemption from the notification and
remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
chapter 301 contending that the
noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety pursuant
to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and
49 CFR part 556, Exemption for
Inconsequential Defect or
Noncompliance.
Because of Ricon’s determination, the
following vehicle manufacturers who
installed the S Series, and K Series
wheelchair lifts in their motor vehicles
determined that their motor vehicles do
not fully comply with paragraph S4.1.1
of FMVSS No. 404, Platform Lift
Installation in Motor Vehicles (49 CFR
571.404). The various vehicle
manufacturers also filed noncompliance
reports, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports and
subsequently petitioned NHTSA, for an
exemption from the notification and
remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety pursuant
to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and
49 CFR part 556, Exemption for
Inconsequential Defect or
Noncompliance.
ElDorado Mobility, Inc. (ElDorado)
determined that certain model year
(MY) 2014–2018 Revability Advantage
Ram Promaster 1500 and 2500 motor
vehicles do not fully comply with
paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404.
ElDorado filed a noncompliance report
dated July 3, 2018, and later amended
it on August 11, 2018. ElDorado
petitioned NHTSA on August 6, 2018.
Champion Bus, Inc. (Champion)
determined that certain MY 2012–2018
Champion buses do not fully comply
with paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No.
404. Champion filed a noncompliance
report dated July 5, 2018, and later
amended that report on August 11,
2018. Champion petitioned NHTSA on
August 8, 2018.
Collins Bus Corporation (Collins)
determined that certain MY 2012–2018
Collins school buses do not fully
comply with paragraph S4.1.1 of
FMVSS No. 404. Collins filed a
noncompliance report dated July 10,
2018, and later amended it on August
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 09, 2024
Jkt 262001
11, 2018. Collins petitioned NHTSA on
August 7, 2018.
ElDorado National Kansas (ENC)
determined that certain MY 2012–2018
ENC buses do not fully comply with
paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404.
ENC filed a noncompliance report on
July 3, 2018, and later amended it on
August 11, 2018. ENC petitioned
NHTSA on August 6, 2018.
Daimler Trucks North America, LLC
(DTNA) determined that certain MY
2013–2019 Thomas Built Buses do not
fully comply with paragraph S4.1.1 of
FMVSS No. 404. DTNA filed two
noncompliance reports, both dated July
18, 2018, and later amended both
reports on August 15, 2018. DTNA
petitioned NHTSA on August 15, 2018.
Navistar, Inc. (Navistar) determined
that certain MY 2013–2019 IC buses do
not fully comply with paragraph S4.1.1
of FMVSS No. 404. Navistar filed two
noncompliance reports both dated June
20, 2018, and both were later amended
on August 17, 2018. Navistar petitioned
NHTSA on July 19, 2018, and amended
the petition on September 24, 2018.
Notice of receipt of Ricon’s and the
vehicle manufacturers’ petitions was
published with a 30-day public
comment period, on April 30, 2021, in
the Federal Register (86 FR 23038). No
comments were received. To view the
petition and all supporting documents
log onto the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) website at
https://www.regulations.gov/. Then
follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2018–
0095.’’
II. Equipment and Vehicles Involved:
On May 15, 2018, Ricon submitted a
noncompliance report stating that
approximately 29,245 S-Series and KSeries wheelchair lifts, manufactured
between May 7, 2012, and May 9, 2018,
were potentially involved. In
conjunction with its May 15, 2018,
noncompliance report, Ricon submitted
a second noncompliance report on May
25, 2018, reporting approximately 2,454
Mirage wheelchair lifts, manufactured
between October 2, 2012, and May 18,
2018, were also potentially involved. On
June 13, 2018, Ricon filed an
inconsequential noncompliance petition
reporting 23,379 S-Series and K-Series
wheelchair lifts and 2,454 Mirage
wheelchair lifts were involved. NHTSA
contacted Ricon to inquire about the
differences in the number of S-Series
and K-Series wheelchair lifts potentially
involved as reported in its petition and
noncompliance report. This led to Ricon
amending their May 15, 2018,
noncompliance report on June 12, 2019,
changing the number of S-Series and KSeries wheelchair lifts potentially
PO 00000
Frm 00129
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
65709
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
E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM
12AUN1
65710
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 155 / Monday, August 12, 2024 / Notices
difference in the number of lifts Ricon
reported as containing the
noncompliance versus the number of
vehicles equipped with these lifts. On
June 10, 2020, Ricon provided a table
reporting that 30,127 S-Series and KSeries 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
reporting
Ricon 6/12/19
reporting
Ricon 6/10/20
reporting
Total OEM
573 reporting
DEALERS ........................................................................................................
OEMs ...............................................................................................................
WABTEC * ........................................................................................................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
7,055
22,850
222
........................
........................
........................
Total ..........................................................................................................
29,245
23,379
30,127
11,722
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD 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
numbers. Based on current numbers as
shown in the table above, there are still
18,405 lifts that have not been
accounted for. Despite several meetings
and communication with Ricon aimed
at identifying the distribution and
disposition of lifts not sold directly to
vehicle manufacturers NHTSA has not
been able to obtain additional
information about those lifts.
NHTSA also feels it is prudent to
emphasize that filing a petition for
inconsequential noncompliance does
not relieve vehicle or equipment
distributors and dealers from the
prohibition on the sale, offer for sale, or
introduction or delivery for introduction
into interstate commerce of the
noncompliant lifts and vehicles under
their control after the petitioners
notified them that the subject
noncompliance existed.
III. Noncompliance: Ricon explains
that its S-Series and K-Series platform
lifts and its Mirage platform lifts do not
comply with the outer barrier interlock
requirements of FMVSS No. 403,
S6.10.2.6 when tested in accordance
with the test procedure at S7.5.1.1 and
S7.5.1.2. As a consequence, certain
commercial buses and school buses
equipped with the subject lifts do not
comply with paragraph S4.1.1 of
FMVSS No. 404.
IV. Rule Requirements: FMVSS No.
403 contains a number of interlock
requirements that prohibit movement of
a lift under circumstances that could
result in death or injury. Among these
requirements paragraph S6.10.2.6 of
FMVSS No. 403, sets forth limitations
on permissible vertical movement of a
platform lift with an undeployed outer
barrier when that barrier is occupied by
a passenger’s body or mobility aid.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 09, 2024
Jkt 262001
Under these interlock requirements, the
lift must stop, and the vertical change in
distance of the horizontal plane (passing
through the point of contact between the
wheelchair test device wheel(s) and the
upper surface of the outer barrier) must
not be greater than 13 mm (0.5 in).
Paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404
requires lift-equipped buses, school
buses, and MPVs other than motor
homes with a GVWR greater than 4,536
kg (10,000 lbs.) to be equipped with a
public-use lift certified as meeting
FMVSS No. 403.
V. Summary of Petitions: The
petitioners described the subject
noncompliance and stated their belief
that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety. In support of their
petitions, the petitioners submitted the
following arguments:
1. The petitioners believe that the
performance of the Ricon lifts does not
create an increased risk to safety:
S-Series and K-Series Lifts
(a) Per the petitioners, the S-Series
and K-Series lifts are used as both
public-use and private-use lifts. The
petitioners explain that the subject lifts
are designed with a durable webbing
retention belt, ‘‘which is attached to and
when belted, extends across each of the
handrails.’’ The petitioners believe that
the retention belt serves two purposes
and is a redundant safety feature. First,
the petitioners state that the retention
belt is a means to physically secure an
occupant within the lift.’’ Furthermore,
the petitioners state that the retention
belt acts as an electrical interlock that is
linked to the operation of the lift
because buckling the retention belt
closes an electrical circuit which, if
open, prevents lift operation. If the belt
is not buckled, the platform cannot
move and the outer barrier will not
move up or down.
(b) The petitioners contend that the
subject noncompliance ‘‘arises only
PO 00000
Frm 00130
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
when the unit is tested to the directions
provided in the test procedure itself,
when the retention belt is buckled and
the wheelchair test device attempts to
access the outer barrier.’’ However, the
petitioners contend that outside of the
test environment, the retention belt
would not be buckled (and the lift
would not be powered at any time an
occupant is attempting to traverse the
outer barrier).
(c) The petitioners state that under the
test conditions described in S7.5.1.1 of
FMVSS No. 403, once the platform lift
is at the ground level loading position
with the outer barrier fully deployed,
the wheelchair test device is placed on
the platform. However, the petitioners
maintain that an occupant secured by
the buckled retention belt, the belt itself
would prevent contact between the
occupant or mobility device with the
outer barrier. The petitioners reiterate
that no power is sent to either the lift
or the outer barrier when the belt is
unbuckled, therefore, the petitioners
claim that any time an occupant is
present on the platform portion of the
lift, the belt interlock protects occupants
from inadvertent movement of the outer
barrier.
(d) Alternatively, the petitioners note
that the test procedure provides that if
the wheelchair test device cannot access
the outer barrier because of a belt
retention type device, the test may
alternatively be conducted with the
wheelchair test device on the ground
facing the entrance to the lift. In this
case, the petitioners contend that, if an
occupant were attempting to access the
platform from ground level outside the
vehicle, the outer barrier would not be
able to move unless the belt was
buckled. As a buckled retention belt
would stretch across the entrance to the
lift the lift attendant or private
individual operator would have to
unbuckle the belt to allow access to the
platform. As an unbuckled belt would
E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM
12AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 155 / Monday, August 12, 2024 / Notices
prevent lift or outer barrier movement
and eliminate risk to the occupant
accessing the lift.
(e) The petitioners also argue that
S7.5.1.1 of the test procedure, which
provides that the wheelchair test device
should be placed on the ground facing
the entrance to the lift when loading
from the ground, is contrary to normal
practice and the Ricon operator’s
manual instructions. According to the
petitioners, the industry standard
practice is to load wheelchair occupants
onto a lift with their back to the vehicle
to minimize the risk of injury to the feet
and lower extremities stemming from
contact with the vehicle.1
(f) The petitioners also state that the
operator’s manual and Ricon-provided
decals facing outward on the vertical
arms of the lift reinforce that the correct
loading procedure is to have the lift
rider face outward from the vehicle.
Mirage Lifts
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
(a) Per the petitioners, the Mirage lifts
are public-use lifts. The Mirage lifts also
incorporate a belt retention device into
its design, but the belt interlock
functions somewhat differently than the
S-Series and K-Series lifts. The
petitioners explain that the belts on the
Mirage lifts act as an interlock sensor
that detects whether the outer barrier is
in a vertical (closed) position. When the
outer barrier is closed and the retention
belt is buckled, the platform can
operate. If the belt is unbuckled, the
outer barrier can move from horizontal
(open) to vertical (closed), but the
platform itself cannot operate.
(b) The petitioners state that as with
the S-Series and K-Series lifts, when an
occupant is on the platform, the
occupant is to be secured by the
restraint belt. To exit the lift and cross
the outer barrier, the belt must be
unbuckled. Unbuckling the retention
belt eliminates power sent to the
platform.
(c) The petitioners argue that
NHTSA’s concern in adopting the outer
1 During the FMVSS No. 403 rulemaking process,
the petitioners state, a manufacturer noted that
portions of the rule had testing conducted in one
direction when the owner’s manual provided for a
different loading direction. See 67 FR 425–26. The
petitioners explain that the manufacturer took the
position that such inconsistencies were contrary to
the requirements of the ADA. In response, the
petitioner states that NHTSA concluded that since
the ADA does not apply to private use lifts, the
loading requirements were not inconsistent with
the ADA. Here, however, the Ricon lifts are used
as public use lifts. Although the ADA states that the
lift shall permit for boarding and unboarding in
both directions, the petitioners argue that the
industry practice and Ricon’s (and other
manufacturers) instructions provide for boarding in
the reverse as an added level of occupant
protection.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 09, 2024
Jkt 262001
barrier interlock in 2007 was that
occupants could be pitched from the lift
if the lift moved when the outer barrier
was occupied. The petitioners claim
that this concern does not exist in
Ricon’s design. The petitioners explain
that when the belt is unbuckled, as it
would be anytime a person is entering
or exiting the lift, the platform is not
powered and cannot move. If the belt is
buckled and the lift is powered, the
retention belt blocks access to the outer
barrier if the occupant is present on the
platform.
2. NHTSA has previously granted
petitions where wheelchair lifts did not
meet the performance requirements of
FMVSS No. 403.
(a) The petitioners say that the
Agency has granted inconsequentiality
petitions where the manufacturer has
not met the performance requirements
of FMVSS No. 403, finding that the
noncompliance did not pose an
increased risk to safety as the lift is used
in the real world. The petitioners
believe that the performance of Ricon’s
platform lifts is consistent with this
precedent.
(b) For example, the petitioners
contend the Agency granted a petition
for decision of inconsequential
noncompliance submitted by The Braun
Corporation (Braun) where the lift
handrails did not meet the values for
deflection force.2 The petitioners say
that the noncompliance, in that case, is
that the handrails collapsed when
exposed to forces above the threshold
requirement. However, the handrail did
not collapse or fail catastrophically. The
petitioners state that the Agency
explained its concern in instituting the
deflection force requirement was that
the possibility of a catastrophic failure
of the handrails would expose the
occupant to a risk of injury. The
petitioners say that the Agency
anticipated that future tests would
specify placement and direction of
forces that will be more focused to
address worst-case handrail
displacement and real-world safety
problems. The Agency, in the
petitioners’ view, recognized that the
noncompliance in this case did not pose
a safety concern that the handrail
requirements were intended to address.
(c) The petitioners note that, similar
to the noncompliance in the Braun
petition, the subject noncompliance in
the Ricon outer barrier emerges only
because of the revisions to the test
procedure implemented in 2012. The
petitioners claim that in actual use and
2 See The Braun Corporation, Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 72 FR
19754 (April 19, 2007).
PO 00000
Frm 00131
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
65711
consistent with the operator’s manual,
the retention belt should never be
buckled when an occupant is attempting
to traverse the outer barrier. Therefore,
the petitioners claim the noncompliance
does not create significant safety
concern.
(d) The petitioners state that NHTSA
has also granted an inconsequentiality
petition submitted by Maxon Industry
Inc. (Maxon) where the deployed
wheelchair retention device was unable
to withstand the required 1,600 pounds
of force.3 In that case, the petitioners
explain that the Maxon lifts included
some designs where the outer barrier
served as the wheelchair retention
device and other designs with both a
belt retention device and an outer
barrier. The belt retention device also
served as an electronic interlock that
precluded the lift from moving up or
down unless buckled.4 Per the
petitioners, the Agency granted the
petition as to the units which
incorporated the retention belt and
noncompliant outer barrier, finding that
such a design did not create an
increased risk to safety since the belt’s
operation precluded the lift from
moving and prevented the stated safety
concern. The petitioners contend that
the Agency denied the petition as to
those units without the retention belt,
reasoning that the lift occupant would
only be relying upon a noncompliant
outer barrier for protection.
(e) The petitioners also state that
Ricon lifts incorporate a retention belt
that operates in the same manner as the
belt described in the Maxon petition. In
both cases, the belt precludes the lift
from operating unless it is buckled. In
granting the Maxon petition, the
petitioners argue the Agency recognized
the belt acted as a redundant safety
feature (along with the technically
noncompliant outer barrier) that
precluded any safety risk. The
petitioners state that the belt interlock
in the Ricon lifts as well as the
operator’s manual instructions create
similar redundancies and offer
equivalent protection to occupants.
(f) Finally, the petitioners state the
environment in which these lifts are
used diminishes any potential risk to
safety. When operated as a public use
lift, the petitioners say there will be a
lift attendant present to monitor the lift
to ensure the occupant enters and exits
3 See Maxon Industry, Inc. DBA Maxonlift Corp.;
Ruling on Petition for Determination of
Inconsequential Noncompliance; 72 FR 28759 (May
22, 2007).
4 Ricon is aware of multiple manufacturers that
use a belt interlock that functions in the same or
similar manner to restrict the operation of the
platform lift.
E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM
12AUN1
65712
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 155 / Monday, August 12, 2024 / Notices
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
the lift safely. When the lift attendant or
private individual is following the
operator’s manual, the petitioners claim,
there should not be an instance where
the lift platform is powered and the
occupant is unrestrained. Ricon has
used this same design lift since the start
of production for decades and without
incident as it relates to the performance
of the outer barrier interlock.
The petitioners conclude by
expressing their belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety, and that
their petitions to be exempted from
providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49
U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49
U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
The petitioners’ petitions and all
supporting documents are available
through the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) website at https://
www.regulations.gov by following the
online search instructions to locate the
docket number as listed in the title of
this notice.
VI. NHTSA’s Analysis: The burden of
establishing the inconsequentiality of a
failure to comply with a performance
requirement in an FMVSS—as opposed
to a labeling requirement with no
performance implications—is more
substantial and difficult to meet.
Accordingly, the Agency has not found
many such noncompliances
inconsequential.5
In determining inconsequentiality of a
noncompliance, NHTSA focuses on the
safety risk to individuals who
experience the type of event against
which a recall would otherwise
protect.6 In general, NHTSA does not
consider the absence of complaints or
injuries when determining if a
noncompliance is inconsequential to
safety. The absence of complaints does
not mean vehicle occupants have not
experienced a safety issue, nor does it
mean that there will not be safety issues
5 Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition
for Determination of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899 (Apr. 14,
2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was
expected to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to
vehicle occupants or approaching drivers).
6 See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR
35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding noncompliance had
no effect on occupant safety because it had no effect
on the proper operation of the occupant
classification system and the correct deployment of
an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods. Inc.; Grant of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013)
(finding occupant using noncompliant light source
would not be exposed to significantly greater risk
than occupant using similar compliant light
source).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 09, 2024
Jkt 262001
in the future.7 Further, because each
inconsequential noncompliance petition
must be evaluated on its own facts and
determinations are highly factdependent, NHTSA does not consider
prior determinations as binding
precedent. Petitioners are reminded that
they have the burden of persuading
NHTSA that the noncompliance is
inconsequential to safety.
The purpose of this standard is to
prevent injuries and fatalities to
passengers and bystanders during the
operation of platform lifts installed in
motor vehicles. Compliance with the
outer barrier interlock requirements in
section S6.10.2.6 is determined by using
the test procedure in section S7.5. In
that test, a mobility device simulator is
placed such that a wheel or wheels are
on the outer barrier and the interlock
must prevent vertical movement of the
lift from the ground level loading
position within prescribed limits. As
described by the petitioners, the
retention belt interlock on the subject
lifts is the functional equivalent of the
interlock mechanism meeting S6.10.2.6
and provided the same level of safety.
If the retention belt is buckled, the
electrical circuit is closed and the
platform and outer barrier can operate
when the buttons on the operator’s
pendant are pressed. If the belt is unbuckled, the electrical circuit is broken
and there is no power to the lift and the
platform cannot move and the outer
barrier will not deploy in either
direction.
NHTSA agrees that the use and
location of the retention belt on Ricon
lifts, along with the operator’s manual
and instruction labels provided on the
lifts provide a sufficient level of safety
such that the noncompliance present in
this case is inconsequential to safety. In
so doing, the agency notes that it is
unlikely that an operator or user of the
subject lifts would attempt to load the
lift with the restraint belt still buckled,
particularly when the normal practice of
loading the lift with the occupant facing
outward is followed. If an occupant
began to back onto the lift platform,
access would be prevented by the
forward location of the belt and the
belt’s contact with the wheelchair back.
It is therefore certain that a lift operator
would unbuckle the belt before
attempting to load the passenger.
7 See Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12,
2016); see also United States v. Gen. Motors Corp.,
565 F.2d 754, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (finding defect
poses an unreasonable risk when it ‘‘results in
hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden engine
fire, and where there is no dispute that at least some
such hazards, in this case fires, can definitely be
expected to occur in the future’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00132
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Although there is the possibility of lift
users tampering with or defeating a belt
interlock to avoid using the belt
restraint, NHTSA is not aware that this
is a significant problem that should be
factored into the agency’s consideration
of the subject Ricon petition.
As stated by the petitioners, NHTSA
has previously granted similar petitions
for inconsequential noncompliance for
performance requirements of FMVSS
No. 403. Specifically, in the Maxon
petition 8 referenced by the petitioners,
NHTSA determined that Maxon
adequately demonstrated that, under the
specific facts and circumstances in that
case, the noncompliance with FMVSS
No. 403 in the affected lifts with
restraint belts was inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. However, NHTSA
also denied Maxon’s petition in part
because the noncompliance in the lifts
without restraint belts was deemed to be
consequential because the absence of
belts or other secondary wheelchair
retention devices meant that lift users’
safety was dependent entirely on the
noncompliant outer barrier.
Despite the previous response to the
Maxon petition, NHTSA’s current view
is that a belt interlock could protect
wheelchair occupants despite a
noncompliant outer barrier if operated
as Ricon describes. NHTSA’s previous
statements about platforms that include
belt-type restraints (see Final Rule 77 FR
20558, at 20561–62) only addressed
very specific test procedure issues and
did not address whether an interlockequipped restraint-belt can satisfy the
interlock requirements of S6.10.2.5 and
S6.10.2.6. The agency has never
intended to limit the use of restraint
belts and continues to allow them as a
useful safety feature. (Although there
may at one time have been a concern
about belt misuse in the case of privateuse lifts, i.e., lift users intentionally
bypassing the belt interlock to avoid
using a belt, the agency is not aware of
any data suggesting that misuse is a
significant concern.) In the case of the
present Ricon lifts, by use of
professional operators and forwardfacing wheelchair seated occupants,
NHTSA is persuaded that a belt
interlock, because it completely disables
operation of the lift, serves the required
safety function of the barrier interlock.
Furthermore, the subject Ricon lifts
meet all other FMVSS No. 403 outer
barrier requirements, particularly the
structural strength of the impact
requirements, so they provide effective
8 See Maxon Industry, Inc. DBA Maxonlift Corp.;
Ruling on Petition for Determination of
Inconsequential Noncompliance; 72 FR 28759 (May
22, 2007).
E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM
12AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 155 / Monday, August 12, 2024 / Notices
containment of wheelchairs and other
users on the subject lifts, and thus meet
the intended safety need.
VII. NHTSA’s Decision: In
consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA
finds that the petitioners have met their
burden of persuasion that the subject
FMVSS No. 403 and FMVSS No. 404
noncompliance in the affected vehicles
and equipment is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, the
petitioners’ petitions are hereby granted
and Ricon and the various vehicle
manufacturers are consequently
exempted from the obligation of
providing notification of, and a free
remedy for, that noncompliance under
49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
NHTSA notes that the statutory
provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to
file petitions for a determination of
inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to
exempt manufacturers only from the
duties found in sections 30118 and
30120, respectively, to notify owners,
purchasers, and dealers of a defect or
noncompliance and to remedy the
defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this
decision only applies to the subject lifts
and buses that the petitioners no longer
controlled at the time it determined that
the noncompliance existed. However,
the granting of these petitions does not
relieve vehicle or equipment
distributors and dealers of the
prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale,
or introduction or delivery for
introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant lifts and buses under
their control after the petitioners
notified them that the subject
noncompliance existed.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and
501.8)
Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2024–17818 Filed 8–9–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
Hazardous Materials: Notice of
Applications for Modification to
Special Permits
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), DOT.
ACTION: List of applications for
modification of special permits.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special
permits from the Department of
Transportation’s Hazardous Material
Regulations, notice is hereby given that
the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety
has received the application described
herein.
SUMMARY:
Comments must be received on
or before August 27, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Record Center, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration U.S. Department of
Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
DATES:
65713
Comments should refer to the
application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of
comments is desired, include a selfaddressed stamped postcard showing
the special permit number.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donald Burger, Chief, Office of
Hazardous Materials Safety General
Approvals and Permits Branch, Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, East Building, PHH–13,
1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast,
Washington, DC 20590–0001, (202) 366–
4535.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Each
mode of transportation for which a
particular special permit is requested is
indicated by a number in the ‘‘Nature of
Application’’ portion of the table below
as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail
freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo
aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying
aircraft.
Copies of the applications are
available for inspection in the Records
Center, East Building, PHH–13, 1200
New Jersey Avenue Southeast,
Washington DC or at https://
regulations.gov.
This notice of receipt of applications
for special permit is published in
accordance with part 107 of the Federal
hazardous materials transportation law
(49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 2,
2024.
Donald P. Burger,
Chief, General Approvals and Permits
Branch.
SPECIAL PERMITS DATA
Application
No.
Applicant
Regulation(s) affected
Nature of the special permits thereof
16172–M ......
Entegris, Inc. .................
173.301(f) ......................
To modify the special permit to authorize an additional hazardous material. (mode 1)
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
Hazardous Materials: Notice of Actions
on Special Permits
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of actions on special
permit applications.
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 09, 2024
Jkt 262001
In accordance with the
procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special
permits from the Department of
Transportation’s Hazardous Material
Regulations, notice is hereby given that
the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety
has received the application described
herein.
SUMMARY:
[FR Doc. 2024–17922 Filed 8–9–24; 8:45 am]
Comments must be received on
or before September 11, 2024.
DATES:
Record Center, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration U.S. Department of
Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00133
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Comments should refer to the
application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of
comments is desired, include a selfaddressed stamped postcard showing
the special permit number.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donald Burger, Chief, Office of
Hazardous Materials Safety General
Approvals and Permits Branch, Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, East Building, PHH–13,
1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast,
Washington, DC 20590–0001, (202) 366–
4535.
E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM
12AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 155 (Monday, August 12, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65708-65713]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-17818]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0095, Notice 2]
Grant of Petitions for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petitions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Ricon Corporation (Ricon), determined that certain Mirage, S-
Series, and K-Series wheelchair lifts do not fully comply with Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 403, Platform Lift Systems
for Motor Vehicles. Because of Ricon's determination, various vehicle
manufacturers who installed the S-Series, and K-Series wheelchair lifts
in their motor vehicles determined that their motor vehicles do not
comply with FMVSS No. 404, Platform Lift Installation in Motor
Vehicles. Ricon and the various vehicle manufacturers, collectively
referred to as the ``the petitioners,'' filed the appropriate
noncompliance reports and subsequently petitioned NHTSA for a decision
that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety. This document announces the grant of the
petitioners' petitions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ahmad Barnes, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
(202) 366-7236 [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: Ricon determined that certain Mirage, S-Series, and K-
Series wheelchair lifts do not fully comply
[[Page 65709]]
with paragraph S6.10.2.6 of FMVSS No. 403, Platform Lift Systems for
Motor Vehicles (49 CFR 571.403) and filed noncompliance reports, dated
May 15, 2018, and May 25, 2018, (and later amended their May 15, 2018,
noncompliance report on June 12, 2019) pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Ricon subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on June 13, 2018, for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. chapter 301
contending that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49
CFR part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
Because of Ricon's determination, the following vehicle
manufacturers who installed the S Series, and K Series wheelchair lifts
in their motor vehicles determined that their motor vehicles do not
fully comply with paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404, Platform Lift
Installation in Motor Vehicles (49 CFR 571.404). The various vehicle
manufacturers also filed noncompliance reports, pursuant to 49 CFR part
573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports and
subsequently petitioned NHTSA, for an exemption from the notification
and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556,
Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
ElDorado Mobility, Inc. (ElDorado) determined that certain model
year (MY) 2014-2018 Revability Advantage Ram Promaster 1500 and 2500
motor vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No.
404. ElDorado filed a noncompliance report dated July 3, 2018, and
later amended it on August 11, 2018. ElDorado petitioned NHTSA on
August 6, 2018.
Champion Bus, Inc. (Champion) determined that certain MY 2012-2018
Champion buses do not fully comply with paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No.
404. Champion filed a noncompliance report dated July 5, 2018, and
later amended that report on August 11, 2018. Champion petitioned NHTSA
on August 8, 2018.
Collins Bus Corporation (Collins) determined that certain MY 2012-
2018 Collins school buses do not fully comply with paragraph S4.1.1 of
FMVSS No. 404. Collins filed a noncompliance report dated July 10,
2018, and later amended it on August 11, 2018. Collins petitioned NHTSA
on August 7, 2018.
ElDorado National Kansas (ENC) determined that certain MY 2012-2018
ENC buses do not fully comply with paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404.
ENC filed a noncompliance report on July 3, 2018, and later amended it
on August 11, 2018. ENC petitioned NHTSA on August 6, 2018.
Daimler Trucks North America, LLC (DTNA) determined that certain MY
2013-2019 Thomas Built Buses do not fully comply with paragraph S4.1.1
of FMVSS No. 404. DTNA filed two noncompliance reports, both dated July
18, 2018, and later amended both reports on August 15, 2018. DTNA
petitioned NHTSA on August 15, 2018.
Navistar, Inc. (Navistar) determined that certain MY 2013-2019 IC
buses do not fully comply with paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404.
Navistar filed two noncompliance reports both dated June 20, 2018, and
both were later amended on August 17, 2018. Navistar petitioned NHTSA
on July 19, 2018, and amended the petition on September 24, 2018.
Notice of receipt of Ricon's and the vehicle manufacturers'
petitions was published with a 30-day public comment period, on April
30, 2021, in the Federal Register (86 FR 23038). No comments were
received. To view the petition and all supporting documents log onto
the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ``NHTSA-2018-0095.''
II. Equipment and Vehicles Involved: On May 15, 2018, Ricon
submitted a noncompliance report stating that approximately 29,245 S-
Series and K-Series wheelchair lifts, manufactured between May 7, 2012,
and May 9, 2018, were potentially involved. In conjunction with its May
15, 2018, noncompliance report, Ricon submitted a second noncompliance
report on May 25, 2018, reporting approximately 2,454 Mirage wheelchair
lifts, manufactured between October 2, 2012, and May 18, 2018, were
also potentially involved. On June 13, 2018, Ricon filed an
inconsequential noncompliance petition reporting 23,379 S-Series and K-
Series wheelchair lifts and 2,454 Mirage wheelchair lifts were
involved. NHTSA contacted Ricon to inquire about the differences in the
number of S-Series and K-Series wheelchair lifts potentially involved
as reported in its petition and noncompliance report. This led to Ricon
amending their May 15, 2018, noncompliance report on June 12, 2019,
changing the number of S-Series and K-Series wheelchair lifts
potentially involved from 29,245 to 23,379 and the production dates
from May 7, 2012, through May 9, 2018, to October 2, 2012, through May
9, 2018.
In concert with Ricon's filings, 6 original equipment manufacturers
(OEMs) who Ricon sold lifts to and who installed the S-Series and K-
Series lifts in its vehicles also filed noncompliance reports and
inconsequential noncompliance petitions. Appropriately, ElDorado,
Champion, Collins, ENC, DTNA, and Navistar determined the following
vehicles are potentially involved:
Approximately 42 MY 2014-2018 Eldorado Revability Advantage Ram
Promaster 1500/2500 motor vehicles, manufactured between September 1,
2014, and June 30, 2018.
Approximately 1,500 MY 2012-2018 Champion Challenger, Defender,
Crusader, American, American Coach, American Crusader, CTS-FE, CTS-RE,
HC American, Platinum Shuttle, and Stacked Rail Impulse buses,
manufactured between May 7, 2012, and May 9, 2018.
Approximately 1,947 MY 2012-2018 Collins multi-function school
activity buses (MFSAB) and Commercial buses, manufactured between May
1, 2012, and June 1, 2018.
Approximately 1,447 MY 2012-2018 Eldorado, Aerotech, Aerolite, Aero
Elite, Transtech, Advantage, World Trans, and Impulse buses,
manufactured between May 1, 2012, and June 1, 2018.
Approximately 31 MY 2013-2019 Thomas Built Buses Saf-T-Liner C2,
Saf-T-Liner EFX, and Saf-T-Liner HDX commercial buses, manufactured
between July 21, 2012, and April 4, 2018, and approximately 3,834 MY
2013-2019 Thomas Built Buses Saf-T-Liner C2, Saf-T-Liner EFX, and Saf-
T-Liner HDX school buses, manufactured between May 5, 2012, and July 4,
2018.
Approximately 2,892 MY 2013-2014 IC Bus AE, MY 2013-2015 IC Bus BE,
MY 2013-2019 IC Bus CE, MY 2013-2014 IC Bus RE, and 2016-2017 IC Bus RE
school buses, manufactured between May 10, 2012, and May 2, 2018, and
approximately 29 MY 2013-2018 IC Bus CE and RE commercial buses,
manufactured between May 10, 2012, and November 7, 2017.
Ricon reported that 2,454 Mirage wheelchair lifts and 23,379 S-
Series and K-Series wheelchair lifts are potentially involved while the
OEMs reported, in total, 11,722 vehicles with the noncompliant S-Series
and K-Series wheelchair lifts are potentially involved. To date, no
OEMs have filed for the Mirage wheelchair lifts. On multiple occasions,
NHTSA made inquiries to Ricon to reconcile the
[[Page 65710]]
difference in the number of lifts Ricon reported as containing the
noncompliance versus the number of vehicles equipped with these lifts.
On June 10, 2020, Ricon provided a table reporting that 30,127 S-Series
and K-Series wheelchair lifts were produced, with 7,055 going to
dealers, 22,850 going to OEMs, and 222 to its parent company Wabtec
Corporation (Wabtec). Below is a table that outlines the different
numbers as reported by Ricon, by date, for the S-Series and K-Series
wheelchair lifts and the total number of vehicles as reported by the
OEMs.
RICON S-Series and K-Series Wheelchair Lifts Potentially Involved
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ricon 5/15/18 Ricon 6/12/19 Ricon 6/10/20 Total OEM 573
reporting reporting reporting reporting
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEALERS......................................... .............. .............. 7,055 ..............
OEMs............................................ .............. .............. 22,850 ..............
WABTEC *........................................ .............. .............. 222 ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 29,245 23,379 30,127 11,722
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Ricon is a subsidiary of WABTEC.
The total number of vehicles reported by the OEMs has not changed
and the number S-Series and K-Series wheelchair lifts as reported by
Ricon on June 10, 2020, are the most up-to-date numbers. Based on
current numbers as shown in the table above, there are still 18,405
lifts that have not been accounted for. Despite several meetings and
communication with Ricon aimed at identifying the distribution and
disposition of lifts not sold directly to vehicle manufacturers NHTSA
has not been able to obtain additional information about those lifts.
NHTSA also feels it is prudent to emphasize that filing a petition
for inconsequential noncompliance does not relieve vehicle or equipment
distributors and dealers from the prohibition on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant lifts and vehicles under their control
after the petitioners notified them that the subject noncompliance
existed.
III. Noncompliance: Ricon explains that its S-Series and K-Series
platform lifts and its Mirage platform lifts do not comply with the
outer barrier interlock requirements of FMVSS No. 403, S6.10.2.6 when
tested in accordance with the test procedure at S7.5.1.1 and S7.5.1.2.
As a consequence, certain commercial buses and school buses equipped
with the subject lifts do not comply with paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No.
404.
IV. Rule Requirements: FMVSS No. 403 contains a number of interlock
requirements that prohibit movement of a lift under circumstances that
could result in death or injury. Among these requirements paragraph
S6.10.2.6 of FMVSS No. 403, sets forth limitations on permissible
vertical movement of a platform lift with an undeployed outer barrier
when that barrier is occupied by a passenger's body or mobility aid.
Under these interlock requirements, the lift must stop, and the
vertical change in distance of the horizontal plane (passing through
the point of contact between the wheelchair test device wheel(s) and
the upper surface of the outer barrier) must not be greater than 13 mm
(0.5 in).
Paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404 requires lift-equipped buses,
school buses, and MPVs other than motor homes with a GVWR greater than
4,536 kg (10,000 lbs.) to be equipped with a public-use lift certified
as meeting FMVSS No. 403.
V. Summary of Petitions: The petitioners described the subject
noncompliance and stated their belief that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. In support of
their petitions, the petitioners submitted the following arguments:
1. The petitioners believe that the performance of the Ricon lifts
does not create an increased risk to safety:
S-Series and K-Series Lifts
(a) Per the petitioners, the S-Series and K-Series lifts are used
as both public-use and private-use lifts. The petitioners explain that
the subject lifts are designed with a durable webbing retention belt,
``which is attached to and when belted, extends across each of the
handrails.'' The petitioners believe that the retention belt serves two
purposes and is a redundant safety feature. First, the petitioners
state that the retention belt is a means to physically secure an
occupant within the lift.'' Furthermore, the petitioners state that the
retention belt acts as an electrical interlock that is linked to the
operation of the lift because buckling the retention belt closes an
electrical circuit which, if open, prevents lift operation. If the belt
is not buckled, the platform cannot move and the outer barrier will not
move up or down.
(b) The petitioners contend that the subject noncompliance ``arises
only when the unit is tested to the directions provided in the test
procedure itself, when the retention belt is buckled and the wheelchair
test device attempts to access the outer barrier.'' However, the
petitioners contend that outside of the test environment, the retention
belt would not be buckled (and the lift would not be powered at any
time an occupant is attempting to traverse the outer barrier).
(c) The petitioners state that under the test conditions described
in S7.5.1.1 of FMVSS No. 403, once the platform lift is at the ground
level loading position with the outer barrier fully deployed, the
wheelchair test device is placed on the platform. However, the
petitioners maintain that an occupant secured by the buckled retention
belt, the belt itself would prevent contact between the occupant or
mobility device with the outer barrier. The petitioners reiterate that
no power is sent to either the lift or the outer barrier when the belt
is unbuckled, therefore, the petitioners claim that any time an
occupant is present on the platform portion of the lift, the belt
interlock protects occupants from inadvertent movement of the outer
barrier.
(d) Alternatively, the petitioners note that the test procedure
provides that if the wheelchair test device cannot access the outer
barrier because of a belt retention type device, the test may
alternatively be conducted with the wheelchair test device on the
ground facing the entrance to the lift. In this case, the petitioners
contend that, if an occupant were attempting to access the platform
from ground level outside the vehicle, the outer barrier would not be
able to move unless the belt was buckled. As a buckled retention belt
would stretch across the entrance to the lift the lift attendant or
private individual operator would have to unbuckle the belt to allow
access to the platform. As an unbuckled belt would
[[Page 65711]]
prevent lift or outer barrier movement and eliminate risk to the
occupant accessing the lift.
(e) The petitioners also argue that S7.5.1.1 of the test procedure,
which provides that the wheelchair test device should be placed on the
ground facing the entrance to the lift when loading from the ground, is
contrary to normal practice and the Ricon operator's manual
instructions. According to the petitioners, the industry standard
practice is to load wheelchair occupants onto a lift with their back to
the vehicle to minimize the risk of injury to the feet and lower
extremities stemming from contact with the vehicle.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ During the FMVSS No. 403 rulemaking process, the petitioners
state, a manufacturer noted that portions of the rule had testing
conducted in one direction when the owner's manual provided for a
different loading direction. See 67 FR 425-26. The petitioners
explain that the manufacturer took the position that such
inconsistencies were contrary to the requirements of the ADA. In
response, the petitioner states that NHTSA concluded that since the
ADA does not apply to private use lifts, the loading requirements
were not inconsistent with the ADA. Here, however, the Ricon lifts
are used as public use lifts. Although the ADA states that the lift
shall permit for boarding and unboarding in both directions, the
petitioners argue that the industry practice and Ricon's (and other
manufacturers) instructions provide for boarding in the reverse as
an added level of occupant protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(f) The petitioners also state that the operator's manual and
Ricon-provided decals facing outward on the vertical arms of the lift
reinforce that the correct loading procedure is to have the lift rider
face outward from the vehicle.
Mirage Lifts
(a) Per the petitioners, the Mirage lifts are public-use lifts. The
Mirage lifts also incorporate a belt retention device into its design,
but the belt interlock functions somewhat differently than the S-Series
and K-Series lifts. The petitioners explain that the belts on the
Mirage lifts act as an interlock sensor that detects whether the outer
barrier is in a vertical (closed) position. When the outer barrier is
closed and the retention belt is buckled, the platform can operate. If
the belt is unbuckled, the outer barrier can move from horizontal
(open) to vertical (closed), but the platform itself cannot operate.
(b) The petitioners state that as with the S-Series and K-Series
lifts, when an occupant is on the platform, the occupant is to be
secured by the restraint belt. To exit the lift and cross the outer
barrier, the belt must be unbuckled. Unbuckling the retention belt
eliminates power sent to the platform.
(c) The petitioners argue that NHTSA's concern in adopting the
outer barrier interlock in 2007 was that occupants could be pitched
from the lift if the lift moved when the outer barrier was occupied.
The petitioners claim that this concern does not exist in Ricon's
design. The petitioners explain that when the belt is unbuckled, as it
would be anytime a person is entering or exiting the lift, the platform
is not powered and cannot move. If the belt is buckled and the lift is
powered, the retention belt blocks access to the outer barrier if the
occupant is present on the platform.
2. NHTSA has previously granted petitions where wheelchair lifts
did not meet the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 403.
(a) The petitioners say that the Agency has granted
inconsequentiality petitions where the manufacturer has not met the
performance requirements of FMVSS No. 403, finding that the
noncompliance did not pose an increased risk to safety as the lift is
used in the real world. The petitioners believe that the performance of
Ricon's platform lifts is consistent with this precedent.
(b) For example, the petitioners contend the Agency granted a
petition for decision of inconsequential noncompliance submitted by The
Braun Corporation (Braun) where the lift handrails did not meet the
values for deflection force.\2\ The petitioners say that the
noncompliance, in that case, is that the handrails collapsed when
exposed to forces above the threshold requirement. However, the
handrail did not collapse or fail catastrophically. The petitioners
state that the Agency explained its concern in instituting the
deflection force requirement was that the possibility of a catastrophic
failure of the handrails would expose the occupant to a risk of injury.
The petitioners say that the Agency anticipated that future tests would
specify placement and direction of forces that will be more focused to
address worst-case handrail displacement and real-world safety
problems. The Agency, in the petitioners' view, recognized that the
noncompliance in this case did not pose a safety concern that the
handrail requirements were intended to address.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See The Braun Corporation, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance; 72 FR 19754 (April 19, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) The petitioners note that, similar to the noncompliance in the
Braun petition, the subject noncompliance in the Ricon outer barrier
emerges only because of the revisions to the test procedure implemented
in 2012. The petitioners claim that in actual use and consistent with
the operator's manual, the retention belt should never be buckled when
an occupant is attempting to traverse the outer barrier. Therefore, the
petitioners claim the noncompliance does not create significant safety
concern.
(d) The petitioners state that NHTSA has also granted an
inconsequentiality petition submitted by Maxon Industry Inc. (Maxon)
where the deployed wheelchair retention device was unable to withstand
the required 1,600 pounds of force.\3\ In that case, the petitioners
explain that the Maxon lifts included some designs where the outer
barrier served as the wheelchair retention device and other designs
with both a belt retention device and an outer barrier. The belt
retention device also served as an electronic interlock that precluded
the lift from moving up or down unless buckled.\4\ Per the petitioners,
the Agency granted the petition as to the units which incorporated the
retention belt and noncompliant outer barrier, finding that such a
design did not create an increased risk to safety since the belt's
operation precluded the lift from moving and prevented the stated
safety concern. The petitioners contend that the Agency denied the
petition as to those units without the retention belt, reasoning that
the lift occupant would only be relying upon a noncompliant outer
barrier for protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Maxon Industry, Inc. DBA Maxonlift Corp.; Ruling on
Petition for Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 72 FR
28759 (May 22, 2007).
\4\ Ricon is aware of multiple manufacturers that use a belt
interlock that functions in the same or similar manner to restrict
the operation of the platform lift.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) The petitioners also state that Ricon lifts incorporate a
retention belt that operates in the same manner as the belt described
in the Maxon petition. In both cases, the belt precludes the lift from
operating unless it is buckled. In granting the Maxon petition, the
petitioners argue the Agency recognized the belt acted as a redundant
safety feature (along with the technically noncompliant outer barrier)
that precluded any safety risk. The petitioners state that the belt
interlock in the Ricon lifts as well as the operator's manual
instructions create similar redundancies and offer equivalent
protection to occupants.
(f) Finally, the petitioners state the environment in which these
lifts are used diminishes any potential risk to safety. When operated
as a public use lift, the petitioners say there will be a lift
attendant present to monitor the lift to ensure the occupant enters and
exits
[[Page 65712]]
the lift safely. When the lift attendant or private individual is
following the operator's manual, the petitioners claim, there should
not be an instance where the lift platform is powered and the occupant
is unrestrained. Ricon has used this same design lift since the start
of production for decades and without incident as it relates to the
performance of the outer barrier interlock.
The petitioners conclude by expressing their belief that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle
safety, and that their petitions to be exempted from providing
notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and
a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should
be granted.
The petitioners' petitions and all supporting documents are
available through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website
at https://www.regulations.gov by following the online search
instructions to locate the docket number as listed in the title of this
notice.
VI. NHTSA's Analysis: The burden of establishing the
inconsequentiality of a failure to comply with a performance
requirement in an FMVSS--as opposed to a labeling requirement with no
performance implications--is more substantial and difficult to meet.
Accordingly, the Agency has not found many such noncompliances
inconsequential.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899
(Apr. 14, 2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was expected
to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or
approaching drivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining inconsequentiality of a noncompliance, NHTSA focuses
on the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event
against which a recall would otherwise protect.\6\ In general, NHTSA
does not consider the absence of complaints or injuries when
determining if a noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. The
absence of complaints does not mean vehicle occupants have not
experienced a safety issue, nor does it mean that there will not be
safety issues in the future.\7\ Further, because each inconsequential
noncompliance petition must be evaluated on its own facts and
determinations are highly fact-dependent, NHTSA does not consider prior
determinations as binding precedent. Petitioners are reminded that they
have the burden of persuading NHTSA that the noncompliance is
inconsequential to safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding
noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no
effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system
and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods.
Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
\7\ See Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr.
12, 2016); see also United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d
754, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an unreasonable risk
when it ``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden
engine fire, and where there is no dispute that at least some such
hazards, in this case fires, can definitely be expected to occur in
the future'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of this standard is to prevent injuries and fatalities
to passengers and bystanders during the operation of platform lifts
installed in motor vehicles. Compliance with the outer barrier
interlock requirements in section S6.10.2.6 is determined by using the
test procedure in section S7.5. In that test, a mobility device
simulator is placed such that a wheel or wheels are on the outer
barrier and the interlock must prevent vertical movement of the lift
from the ground level loading position within prescribed limits. As
described by the petitioners, the retention belt interlock on the
subject lifts is the functional equivalent of the interlock mechanism
meeting S6.10.2.6 and provided the same level of safety. If the
retention belt is buckled, the electrical circuit is closed and the
platform and outer barrier can operate when the buttons on the
operator's pendant are pressed. If the belt is un-buckled, the
electrical circuit is broken and there is no power to the lift and the
platform cannot move and the outer barrier will not deploy in either
direction.
NHTSA agrees that the use and location of the retention belt on
Ricon lifts, along with the operator's manual and instruction labels
provided on the lifts provide a sufficient level of safety such that
the noncompliance present in this case is inconsequential to safety. In
so doing, the agency notes that it is unlikely that an operator or user
of the subject lifts would attempt to load the lift with the restraint
belt still buckled, particularly when the normal practice of loading
the lift with the occupant facing outward is followed. If an occupant
began to back onto the lift platform, access would be prevented by the
forward location of the belt and the belt's contact with the wheelchair
back. It is therefore certain that a lift operator would unbuckle the
belt before attempting to load the passenger. Although there is the
possibility of lift users tampering with or defeating a belt interlock
to avoid using the belt restraint, NHTSA is not aware that this is a
significant problem that should be factored into the agency's
consideration of the subject Ricon petition.
As stated by the petitioners, NHTSA has previously granted similar
petitions for inconsequential noncompliance for performance
requirements of FMVSS No. 403. Specifically, in the Maxon petition \8\
referenced by the petitioners, NHTSA determined that Maxon adequately
demonstrated that, under the specific facts and circumstances in that
case, the noncompliance with FMVSS No. 403 in the affected lifts with
restraint belts was inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. However,
NHTSA also denied Maxon's petition in part because the noncompliance in
the lifts without restraint belts was deemed to be consequential
because the absence of belts or other secondary wheelchair retention
devices meant that lift users' safety was dependent entirely on the
noncompliant outer barrier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Maxon Industry, Inc. DBA Maxonlift Corp.; Ruling on
Petition for Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 72 FR
28759 (May 22, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the previous response to the Maxon petition, NHTSA's
current view is that a belt interlock could protect wheelchair
occupants despite a noncompliant outer barrier if operated as Ricon
describes. NHTSA's previous statements about platforms that include
belt-type restraints (see Final Rule 77 FR 20558, at 20561-62) only
addressed very specific test procedure issues and did not address
whether an interlock-equipped restraint-belt can satisfy the interlock
requirements of S6.10.2.5 and S6.10.2.6. The agency has never intended
to limit the use of restraint belts and continues to allow them as a
useful safety feature. (Although there may at one time have been a
concern about belt misuse in the case of private-use lifts, i.e., lift
users intentionally bypassing the belt interlock to avoid using a belt,
the agency is not aware of any data suggesting that misuse is a
significant concern.) In the case of the present Ricon lifts, by use of
professional operators and forward-facing wheelchair seated occupants,
NHTSA is persuaded that a belt interlock, because it completely
disables operation of the lift, serves the required safety function of
the barrier interlock. Furthermore, the subject Ricon lifts meet all
other FMVSS No. 403 outer barrier requirements, particularly the
structural strength of the impact requirements, so they provide
effective
[[Page 65713]]
containment of wheelchairs and other users on the subject lifts, and
thus meet the intended safety need.
VII. NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA
finds that the petitioners have met their burden of persuasion that the
subject FMVSS No. 403 and FMVSS No. 404 noncompliance in the affected
vehicles and equipment is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, the petitioners' petitions are hereby granted and Ricon
and the various vehicle manufacturers are consequently exempted from
the obligation of providing notification of, and a free remedy for,
that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision
only applies to the subject lifts and buses that the petitioners no
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, the granting of these petitions does not relieve
vehicle or equipment distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on
the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction
into interstate commerce of the noncompliant lifts and buses under
their control after the petitioners notified them that the subject
noncompliance existed.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)
Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2024-17818 Filed 8-9-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
