[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