19754 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 75 / Thursday, April 19, 2007 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA 2006–26280; Notice 2] 

The Braun Corporation, Grant of 

Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

The Braun Corporation (Braun) has 

determined that certain wheelchair lifts 

it produced in 2005 through 2006 do not 

comply with S6.4.9 of 49 CFR 571.403, 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) No. 403, ‘‘Platform lift systems 

for motor vehicles.’’ Pursuant to 49 

U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Braun 

has petitioned for a determination that 

this noncompliance is inconsequential 

to motor vehicle safety and has filed an 

appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR 

part 573, ‘‘Defect and Noncompliance 

Reports.’’ Notice of receipt of a petition 

was published, with a 30-day comment 

period, on December 13, 2006, in the 

Federal Register (71 FR 74993). The 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) received no 

comments. To view the petition and all 

supporting documents, go to: http:// 

dms.dot.gov/search/ 

searchFormSimple.cfm and enter 

Docket No. NHTSA–2006–26280. 

Affected are a total of approximately 

15,992 model NL, NCL, and NVL 

wheelchair lifts produced between April 

1, 2005 and July 19, 2006. S6.4.9.7 of 

FMVSS No. 403 requires: 

When tested in accordance with S7.12.1, 

each handrail must withstand 445 N (100 

pounds force) applied at any point and in 

any direction on the handrail without more 

than 25 mm (1 inch) of displacement relative 

to the platform surface. After removal of the 

load, the handrail must exhibit no permanent 

deformation. 

In addition, S6.4.9.9 of FMVSS No. 403 

requires: 

When tested in accordance with S7.12.2, 

each handrail must withstand 1,112 N (250 

lbf) applied at any point and in any direction 

on the handrail without sustaining any 

failure, such as cracking, separation, fracture, 

or more than 100 mm (4 inches) of 

displacement of any point on the handrails 

relative to the platform surface. 

The noncompliant lifts do not meet the 

displacement requirements of S6.4.9.7 

and S6.4.9.9. 

Braun described its noncompliance as 

follows: 

Following compliance tests conducted by 

the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration at MGA Research 

Corporation in Burlington, Wisconsin, The 

Braun Corporation has confirmed through its 

investigation that it manufactured and 

distributed approximately 15,992 wheelchair 

lifts (from April 1, 2005 to July 19, 2006) 

whose handrails are unable to meet the 

requirements for displacement as defined in 

S6.4.9.7 and S6.4.9.9 of the standard. 

Braun has corrected the problem that 

caused these errors so that they will not 

be repeated in future production. 

Braun believes that this 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety and that no 

corrective action is warranted. Braun 

stated that: 

The non-complying wheelchair lifts 

continue to meet the requirements set forth 

in the Americans with Disabilities Act 

(ADA). In other words, they are able to 

withstand ‘‘a force of 100 pounds 

concentrated at any point on the handrail 

without permanent deformation of the rail or 

its supporting structure.’’ . . . The Braun 

Corporation has never received a claim or 

complaint of handrail failure resulting in an 

injury. . . . [T]he handrails have been 

utilized hundreds of millions, if not billions 

of times without incident. . . . [A]ny 

modifications, or upgrades imposed to ensure 

compliance with FMVSS 403 would appear 

to provide a statistically insignificant 

enhancement.’’

When NHTSA proposed handrail 

requirements in July 2000, it stated that 

the 445 N (100 lb) force applied at any 

point and in any direction on the 

handrail is to ensure that handrails are 

stable and have adequate clearance 

around them. The 445 N (100 lb) force 

is a test that represents normal use and 

the resulting deflections should not 

cause the passenger to become unstable 

or allow his hands which are grasping 

the handrails to interact with any 

portion of the vehicle. Such results 

would be a safety concern. The 1,112 N 

(250 lb) force is a test that assures that 

handrails are sufficiently strong to 

prevent catastrophic failure. If a 

handrail is overloaded, it is allowed to 

deflect further, however, it would be 

undesirable for the handrail to fracture 

which could cause it to collapse. The 

July 27, 2000 supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) (65 FR 

46228) and the December 2002 final rule 

(67 FR 79416) have the same handrail 

requirements and test procedures. In 

addition to these functional 

requirements, maximum displacement 

limits are specified. In NHTSA’s 

compliance test on the Braun lift, the 

445 N (100 lb) force was applied 

downward on the handrail and the 

deflection of 51 mm exceeded the 

requirement’s limit of 25 mm. The 1,112 

N (250 lb) force was applied downward 

and the deflection of 124 mm exceeded 

the requirement’s limit of 100 mm. 

During application of the 1,112 N (250 

lb) force, however, the handrail did not 

exhibit cracking, separation or fracture. 

Although the Braun lift handrail, when 

tested with a downward force, exceeded 

the displacement limits by 26 mm at 

445 N (100 lb) and 24 mm at 1,112 N 

(250 lb), the handrail gradually 

deflected downward and did not fail 

catastrophically. This type of failure 

would not cause the passenger to 

become unstable, adversely interact 

with the vehicle, or pose a safety 

concerns that the handrail requirements 

were intended to address. NHTSA is 

reviewing its laboratory test procedure 

as applicable to the handrail protocols 

to assess compliance with S6.4.9. It is 

anticipated that future tests will specify 

placement and direction of forces that 

will be more focused to address worstcase handrail displacement and realworld safety problems. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA has decided that the petitioner 

has met its burden of persuasion that 

the noncompliance described is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 

Accordingly, Braun’s petition is granted 

and the petitioner is exempted from the 

obligation of providing notification of, 

and a remedy for, the noncompliances. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; 

delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 

501.8. 

Issued on: April 12, 2007. 

Daniel C. Smith, 

Associate Administrator for Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. E7–7412 Filed 4–18–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

Office of Hazardous Materials Safety; 

Notice of Application for Special 

Permits 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), DOT. 

ACTION: List of Applications for Special 

Permits. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

procedures governing the application 

for, and the processing of, special 

permits from the Department of 

Transportation’s Hazardous Material 

Regulations (49 CFR part 107, subpart 

B), notice is hereby given that the Office 

of Hazardous Materials Safety has 

received the application described 

herein. 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, 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 75 / Thursday, April 19, 2007 / Notices 19755 

4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passengercarrying aircraft. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 21, 2007. 

Address Comments to: Record Center, 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Washington, DC 20590. 

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: 

Copies of the applications are available 

for inspection in the Records Center, 

Nassif Building, 400 7th Street SW., 

Washington, DC or at http:// 

dms.dot.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 April 12, 

2007. 

Delmer Billings, 

Director, Special Permits & Approvals 

Programs, Office of Hazardous Materials, 

Special Permits & Approvals. 

NEW SPECIAL PERMITS

Application 

number 

Docket 

number Applicant Regulation(s) affected Nature of special permits thereof 

14487–N .................... Osmose Inc. 

Millington, TN.

49 CFR 173.212 ........... To authorize the one-way transportation in commerce of Arsenic trioxide, Division 6.1, PG II in non-DOT specification drums. (mode 1) 

14492–N .................... Tankbouw 

Rootselaar 

B.V. The Netherlands.

49 CFR 178.276(a)(1) 

and (a)(2).

To authorize the manufacture, mark, sale and use of non-DOT specifications portable tanks conforming with the 2004 edition (+2005 

Addenda) of Section VIII, Division 1 of the ASME Code for the 

transportation in commerce of certain Division 2.1 and 2.2 hazardous materials. (modes 1, 2, 3) 

14493–N .................... Thermacore, Inc. 

Lancaster, PA.

49 CFR 173.306(e) ....... To authorize the transportation in commerce of non-DOT specification 

containers (heat pipes) containing anhydrous ammonia for use in 

specialty cooling applications (modes 1, 2, 3, 4) 

14494–N .................... Airgas, Inc. 

Cheyenne, WY.

49 CFR 172.202, 

172.301(a), and 

172.301(c).

To authorize the transportation in commerce of cylinders that are 

marked with obsolete proper shipping descriptions to allow for their 

return. (modes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) 

14495–N .................... GE Healthcare 

Arlington 

Heights, IL.

49 CFR 173.302(a), 

175.3.

To authorize the transportation in commerce of a Division 2.2 gas in a 

non-DOT specification cylinder (modes 1, 4) 

14496–N .................... Oilphase Division, 

Schlumberger 

Eval. & Production (UK) 

Ltd Dyce, Aberdeen, UK.

49 CFR 173.201(c), 

173.202(c), 

173.203(c), 

172.301(f), 

173.302(a), 

173.304(d), 

173.304(d), 175.3.

To authorize the manufacture, marking, sale and use of non-DOT 

specifications cylinders similar to a DOT 3A for the transportation of 

Division 2.1 and 2.3 gases. (modes 1, 2, 3, 4) 

14499–N .................... Optimus International.49 CFR 

173.304a(d)(3)(ii) AB.

To authorize the manufacture, marking, sale and use of non-DOT 

specification, nonrefillable inside containers similar to DOT–2P for 

certain Division 2.1 flammable gases. (modes 1, 2, 3, 4) 

14500–N .................... Northwest Respiratory Services St. Paul, 

MN.

49 CFR 172.203(a); 

177.834(h).

To authorize the loading and unloading of DOT 4L cylinders without 

unloading them from a vehicle. (mode 1) 

14504–N .................... Medis Technologies Ltd. 

New York, NY.

49 CFR 175.10(a) ......... To authorize passengers and crewmembers on aircraft to carry on 

baggage containing micro fuel cell systems with a small quantity of 

sodium/potassium borohydride solution, a Class 8, PG II liquid and 

a small quantity of potassium hydroxide electrolyte solution, a Class 

8, PG II liquid. (mode 5) 

[FR Doc. 07–1931 Filed 4–18–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4909–60–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

Office of Hazardous Materials Safety; 

Notice of Delays in Processing of 

Special Permits Applications 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), DOT. 

ACTION: List of Applications Delayed 

more than 180 days. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5117(c), 

PHMSA is publishing the following list 

of special permit applications that have 

been in process for 180 days or more. 

The reason(s) for delay and the expected 

completion date for action on each 

application is provided in association 

with each identified application. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Delmer Billings, Office of Hazardous 

Materials Special Permits and 

Approvals, Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590–0001, (202) 366–4535. 

Key to ‘‘Reason for Delay’’

1. Awaiting additional information 

from applicant. 

2. Extensive public comment under 

review. 

3. Application is technically complex 

and is of significant impact or 

precedent-setting and requires extensive 

analysis. 

4. Staff review delayed by other 

priority issues or volume of special 

permit applications. 

Meaning of Application Number 

Suffixes 

N—New application. 

M—Modification request. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES