Document ID: NHTSA-2021-0067-0002
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance: Ricon Corp.
Posted Date: 2023-01-27T05:00Z

[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, 
[email protected].

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