Memorandum - NHTSA

v-4
Many of the Final Rule requirements lack a demonstrated safety need and are based on logic,
common sense and engineering judgment. Some of the requirements are based on anecdotal
information shared with the agency staff. Although NHTSA examined the NEISS wheelchair
incidence data for lifts, no information was contained in the file pertaining to cause and effect.
Therefore, the requirements of the Final Rule can not be matched with incidence data.
A number of commenters (e.g. Flexible, Mobile-Tech, St. Paul Public Schools, and the Iowa
Department of Education) pointed out that they have no record of mishaps or injuries due to
people getting caught in folding mechanisms or entangled in moving lift parts. In those cases
where injuries or death are known to have occurred, and the cause was known, requirements that
address those causes have been included in the Final Rule (e.g., interlocks that prevent stowag :if
an occupant is on the lift, interlocks that prevent the outer barrier from flipping the WC and its
occupant over, and a dynamic WC retention test that will prevent WC climbing or plowing-
through the outer barrier).
FMVSS No. 403 will allow the agency to remove defective ifts from the market (e.g., in effect
DOT’Srecall and remedy authority is extended to WC lifts). This is not the case with ADA and
voluntary standards such as FTA and SAE.
Most of the requirements in the Final Rule are based on other standards, however, in many caE es
these standards did not provide an objective means of determining compliance. .The Final Ruli:
has addressed this issue extensively by describing as many requirements as possible in