|
|---|
|
Ricon Corporation, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Publication: Federal Register Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Byline: Otto G. Matheke III Date: 27 January 2023 Subject: American Government  , Safety
Topic: Ricon |
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 18 (Friday, January 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5413-5415]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01690]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2021-0067; Notice 1]
Ricon Corporation, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Receipt of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Ricon Corporation (Ricon) has determined that certain Ricon
Baylift Series wheelchair lifts (Baylifts) do not fully comply with
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 403, Platform Lift
Systems for Motor Vehicles. Ricon filed an original noncompliance
report dated July 30, 2021, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA on August
26, 2021, for a decision that the subject noncompliances are
inconsequential as they relate to motor vehicle safety. This notice
announces receipt of Ricon's petition.
DATES: Send comments on or before February 27, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and
submitted by any of the following methods:
Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.
Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except for Federal holidays.
Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
Comments must be written in the English language and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the docket. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ahmad Barnes, Safety Compliance
Engineer, NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, 202-366-7236,
ahmad.barnes@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
Ricon has determined that certain Ricon Baylift Series wheelchair
lifts do not fully comply with the requirements of paragraphs S6.4.2,
S6.4.4.3, S6.10.2.7, and S6.7.4 of FMVSS No. 403, Platform Lift Systems
for Motor Vehicles (49 CFR 571.403). Ricon filed a noncompliance report
dated July 30, 2021, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Ricon subsequently petitioned
NHTSA on August 26, 2021, for an exemption from the notification and
remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that the
noncompliances are inconsequential as they relate to motor vehicle
safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part
556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
This notice of receipt of Ricon's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any Agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
II. Equipment Involved
Approximately 1,877 Ricon Baylift Series wheelchair lifts,
manufactured between April 1, 2005, and April 22, 2020, are potentially
involved.
III. Noncompliances
Ricon explains that the subject lifts have four noncompliances
related to both the design of the platform and the performance of the
lifts. The first noncompliance is that the lift platform does not meet
the unobstructed platform minimum operating volume at one particular
location on the platform as required by paragraph S6.4.2.1 of FMVSS No.
403. Specifically, at the location of the lift platform counterbalance
gas springs, the slight protrusion of the gas springs, and the gas
spring mounting hardware reduces the platform clear width to
approximately 755.7 mm (29.75 inches) between the gas springs and 746.3
mm (29.38 inches) at the specific location of the gas spring mounting
hardware. A minimum operating volume of 30 inches width at 2 inches
above the platform surface. The platform meets the volume requirements
in all other locations.
The gap between the edge of the outer platform and the
fully deployed outer barrier is marginally larger (approximately 2.38
mm (0.094 inches)) than the clearance test block specified in S7.1.3
and may allow the test block to pass through the gap when the long axis
is held perpendicular to the
[[Page 5414]]
platform reference plane as required in S6.4.4.3.
The inner roll stop interlock may not sense the presence
of the wheelchair test device in certain limited locations when tested
to the provisions of S7.6.3. When the lift platform is at vehicle floor
height with the inner barrier in the fully down (non-deployed) position
and a wheelchair test device is placed in certain locations on the
inner barrier with 1 or 2 front wheels on the inner roll stop, the
inner roll stop may begin to deploy even though there is a wheelchair
present.
The wheelchair lift control does not conform to the
simultaneous activation requirements of FMVSS 403 section S6.7.4 for
the DEPLOY and DOWN command functions.
IV. Rule Requirements
The following paragraphs of FMVSS No. 403 include the requirements
relevant to this petition.
S6.4.2: Unobstructed platform operating volume. S6.4.2.1
Public use lifts. For public use lifts, the minimum platform operating
volume is the sum of an upper part and a lower part. The lower part is
a rectangular solid whose base is 725 mm (28.5 in) wide by the length
of the platform surface, whose height is 50 mm (2 in), and which is
resting on the platform surface with each side of the base parallel
with the nearest side of the platform surface. The width is
perpendicular to the lift reference plane and the length is parallel to
the lift reference plane. The upper part is a rectangular solid whose
base is 760 mm (30 in) by 1,220 mm (48 in) long, whose height is 711 mm
(28 in), and whose base is tangent to the top surface of the lower
rectangular solid. The centroids of both the upper and lower parts
coincide with the vertical centroidal axis of the platform reference
plane.
S6.4.4.3: When the inner roll stop or any outer barrier is
deployed, any gap between the inner roll stop and lift platform and any
gap between the outer barrier and lift platform must prevent passage of
the clearance test block specified in S7.1.3 when its long axis is held
perpendicular to the platform reference plane.
S6.10.2.7: Vertical deployment of the inner roll is stop
required to comply with S6.4.8 when it is occupied by portions of a
passenger's body or mobility aid throughout the lift operations. When
the platform stops, the vertical change in distance of the horizontal
plane (passing through the point of contact between the wheelchair test
device wheel(s) and the upper surface of the inner roll stop or
platform edge) must not be greater than 13 mm (0.5 in). Verification of
compliance with this requirement is made using the test procedure
specified in S7.6.1.
S6.7.4: Except for the POWER function described in
S6.7.2.1, the control system specified in S6.7.2 must prevent the
simultaneous performance of more than one function. If an initial
function is actuated, then one or more other functions are actuated
while the initial function remains actuated, the platform must either
continue in the direction dictated by the initial function or stop.
Verification of this requirement is made throughout the lift operations
specified in S7.9.3 through S7.9.8.
V. Summary of Ricon's Petition
The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of Ricon's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by
Ricon. They have not been evaluated by the Agency and do not reflect
the views of the Agency. Ricon describes the four subject
noncompliances and contends that the noncompliances are inconsequential
as they relate to motor vehicle safety, ``whether considered
individually or as a whole.''
Ricon submits the following arguments for each of the
noncompliances:
A. Unobstructed Platform Operating Volume
Ricon states that although the width at 2 inches above the platform
surface measures 0.62 inches less than the required width, this
condition ``does not pose a safety risk or deny access to mobility
users.'' Ricon argues, the intent of this requirement ``is to create a
consistent platform size to ensure most users with mobility devices are
able to access the platform and the vehicle'' and cites 67 FR 79416
(December 27, 2002). Ricon also states that the Baylifts were not
designed for use in public transit buses but to be installed in
``specialized over the road buses such as motorcoaches that are used
for tour operations.''
According to Ricon, there ``is little to no risk that a user would
be precluded from accessing the motorcoach'' via the subject lifts can
accommodate ``a standard adult-sized manual powered wheelchair'' as
defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act. Further, Ricon found
that 3 out of 45 powered wheelchairs and 1 of 14 scooters sold by
``major mobility device manufacturers'' were 30 or more inches wide.\1\
Ricon also says that in NHTSA's final rule for FMVSS Nos. 403 and
404,\2\ it ``recognized and accepted that not all mobility devices
could necessarily be accommodated through the platform volume
provision.'' Ricon stated its belief that ``the minor deviations in the
platform volume width at the extreme upper part of the platform would
have no impact on the ability of a user with a standard wheelchair''
and ``limited, if any effect on powered mobility device users.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ricon submitted details of these findings in its petition
which can be viewed in full at https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2021-0067-0001.
\2\ See Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Platform Lift
Systems for Accessible Motor Vehicles, Platform Lift Installations
on Motor Vehicles; 67 FR 79415 (December 27, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Outer Barrier Gap
Ricon says that although the gap measures 2.38 mm (0.094 inch) more
than the requirements allows, ``the deviation is extremely slight'' and
does not pose a safety risk. Ricon provided photos in its petition \3\
to demonstrate that ``the size of the gap with the exceedance is so
small that it does not create an open space or a void between the
testing block and the metal edge of the gap.'' Ricon also says that
because the ``standard size of a walking cane tip'' and the size of
drive and caster wheels found on wheelchairs, are bigger than the gap,
occupants using mobility devices would not be impacted. Additionally,
Ricon says that the orientation in which these devices should be used
would provide ``no opportunity for the wheel or base to slip into the
gap even in the unlikely scenario that a device had an extremely small
base installed.'' Ricon argues that occupants ``are typically aided by
trained personnel during entry and exit of the platform,'' which it
believes would further reduce the possibility of any safety risks
associate with this noncompliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2021-0067-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Inner Roll Stop Interlock
Ricon states that although the subject lifts may not meet the inner
roll stop interlock requirement, the conditions given by the test
procedure ``are inconsistent with the manner in which the platform is
loaded and unloaded in normal and real world operating conditions.''
Ricon believes that this noncompliance is not consequential to safety
because the operating procedures provided with the subject lifts state
that the ``user mobility device should be loaded with the rear wheels
of the wheelchair first,'' therefore, ``the rear wheels would be sensed
by the inner roll stop lock and the interlock would
[[Page 5415]]
be activated.'' Ricon also notes that ``in normal operating
conditions'' the wheelchair user would be assisted by ``trained
personnel during entry and exit of the platform,'' so ``in the unlikely
event'' the wheelchair user is misoriented, the trained operator would
step in to assist.
D. Control Pendant
Ricon then addresses the noncompliance concerning the control
pendant and states that ``due to the geometry of the pendant and
buttons'' it is highly unlikely to simultaneously activate the UP and
DOWN buttons or the STOW and DEPLOY buttons. Ricon says that due to the
buttons being spaced approximately 1.25 inches ``between centers across
the top surface of the pendant device,'' Ricon argues that it would be
difficult for an operator to ``wrap their hand around the back of the
pendant or contort their hand across the top of the pendant to across
the top of the pendant'' making it difficult and unlikely for the
operator to activate multiple buttons simultaneously. Furthermore,
Ricon says that ``the pendants use four individual push style buttons
that utilize a momentary switch to cause the lift to move up/down or
stow/deploy'' and ``a separate button must be pressed downwards for
each function.'' Overall, Ricon argues the function will not be
activated merely by making contact with the button surface; force must
be deliberately applied to the button to engage it.
In the event that the up/down or stow/deploy buttons were to be
activated simultaneously, Ricon explains that ``because of the
momentary switch design, the lift can only be activated for as long as
the operator holds down the button,'' therefore, ``[a]s soon as the two
buttons are released, the lift immediately stops movement.''
Additionally, according to Ricon, if the operator were to continue to
simultaneously press the UP and DOWN ``the lift would change direction
from the intended downwards movement and instead begin a normal upwards
motion'' at a speed that falls within the maximum platform velocity, as
required by paragraph S.6.2.1 of FMVSS No. 403. Ricon also states all
occupants ``must be secured in the platform by a safety belt which is a
redundant safety feature.''
Ricon then goes on to explain that the STOW and DEPLOY can only be
activated simultaneously ``when the lift is located in the stowed
position and is being commanded to deploy.'' Ricon states that if these
buttons were to be pressed at the same time, it would not impact safety
``because the lift would be unoccupied'' in the stowed position.
According to Ricon, NHTSA has previously granted petitions
regarding noncompliances that are similar to the subject noncompliance.
Ricon cites one petition from The Braun Corporation ``where the lift
handrails did not meet the values for deflection force.'' \4\ Ricon
explains that although ``the handrails collapsed when exposed to forces
above the threshold requirement, the handrails did not collapse or fail
catastrophically,'' and summarizes that NHTSA's concern in
``instituting the deflection force requirement was the possibility of a
catastrophic failure of the handrails which would expose the occupant
to a risk of injury.'' Therefore, Ricon says, NHTSA ``recognized'' that
the noncompliance in that case was not a safety concern that was
intended to be addressed by handrail requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See ``The Braun Corporation, Grant of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance;'' 72 FR 19754 (April 19, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ricon says that, like the noncompliance found in the Braun
Corporation's petition, ``there is little to no risk of harm or
injury'' caused by the subject noncompliances. Ricon then reiterates
that it ``[t]he slight design deviations in the unobstructed platform
operating volume and the gap between the outer platform and fully
deployed outer barrier do not present any risks to user safety, nor
have these issues denied access to the vehicle for any mobility device
users'' and ``under normal operating conditions, the inner roll stop
interlock performs as required and not present any risk to the
occupant.''
Ricon says that they are not aware of any users being denied access
due to the noncompliance. Ricon says if they were to remedy the
noncompliance, it would require them to completely redesign the lifts.
Ricon concludes its petition by stating that the subject noncompliances
are inconsequential as they relate to motor vehicle safety and that its
petition 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.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject lifts that Ricon no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliances existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve 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 under their control after Ricon
notified them that the subject noncompliances 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. 2023-01690 Filed 1-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P