Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2011 / Notices 19187 

label, while also exempting shippers 

and carriers from complying with the 

normal hazardous materials 

requirements regarding shipping papers, 

training, and placarding, et al., 

demonstrates the weakness of the 

petition. It is unclear how emergency 

response will be improved. NTTC said 

that what is foreseeable, however, is that 

the requested action would 

unnecessarily open the door to 

consideration of numerous other nonhazardous products. In addition, it 

would weaken the international 

harmonization of hazardous materials 

that PHMSA is working to further, and 

which NTTC supports. In short, NTTC 

views the petition as ‘‘an attempt to fit 

a round peg into a square hole,’’ and 

urged the Administrator to deny the 

petition. 

The International Sleep Products 

Association (ISPA) opposes the petition 

and requests that PHMSA dismiss it. 

ISPA said that most mattress producers 

assemble finished mattresses from 

components supplied by third parties, 

and that many mattresses sold in the 

United States today contain flexible PU 

foam to provide cushioning and 

support. All finished mattresses, 

including those that contain flexible PU 

foam, must meet various flammability 

standards. For example, since the mid1970s, the Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (CPSC) has required that 

all mattresses resist ignition from a 

smoldering cigarette. 16 CFR part 1632. 

Beginning July 1, 2007 the CPSC will 

require that all mattresses withstand an 

open-flame ignition (such as a match, 

lighter, or candle). 16 CFR part 1633. 

ISPA said that PHMSA should dismiss 

the petition because it provides no legal 

or factual basis for designating PU foam 

as a hazardous material. 

The American Trucking Associations 

(ATA) said that one of the most 

troubling aspects of the petition is the 

difficulty motor carriers would 

experience in complying with the 

suggested requirement to mark trucks to 

indicate the presence of polyurethane 

foam. Polyurethane foam is ubiquitous. 

In addition to its use in furniture, 

pillows, mattresses, car seats, and carpet 

padding, it is used as insulation in 

refrigerators, freezers and truck bodies. 

It is used as a packaging material. It also 

is used as a decorative coating and is 

molded into car bumpers. The ATA said 

that motor carriers take seriously their 

responsibility to comply with DOT 

regulations, and that the regulatory 

requirements requested in this petition 

set up motor carriers to fail—as motor 

carriers face a regulatory requirement to 

mark trucks containing polyurethane 

foam, but have no corresponding way to 

know whether a shipper has tendered 

articles containing polyurethane foam. 

III. PHMSA Is Denying the NASFM 

Petition P–1491 

In accordance with 49 CFR 106.95, 

Petition P–1491 is denied for the 

following reasons: 

(1) In conclusion, the majority of 

commenters do not believe that PU 

foam, nor products that contain PU 

foam, meet any of the defining criteria 

under the HMR, and do not constitute 

an ‘‘unreasonable’’ risk to health, safety 

and property when transported in 

commerce. PHMSA agrees with the 

majority of the commenters. A PU fire 

is similar to house fires and other fires 

with organic materials. A PU fire does 

not require special fire fighting agents, 

procedures, or protective equipment 

and, therefore, does not pose an 

unreasonable danger to first responders. 

PHMSA believes that the information in 

the compendium do not support the 

petition. Thus, classifying PU foam as a 

hazardous material is unwarranted and 

inconsistent with the standards for 

classification set forth in the HMR. 

(2) PU foam is not designated as a 

hazardous material because it is not 

considered a substance or material 

capable of posing an acute or 

unreasonable risk to health, safety and 

property when transported in 

commerce. The petition does not 

provide sufficient supporting data to 

warrant the adoption of the petition. 

(3) PU foam products are solid organic 

materials. Like many other plastic 

products, PU foam products were not 

deemed to meet the ‘‘Readily 

combustible solid’’ definition and test 

criteria when DOT and the UN 

Committee of Experts developed the 

definition, test method, and criteria in 

1990. The Material Safety Data Sheets 

(MSDS) submitted by the NASFM did 

not identify PU foam products as 

hazardous materials. Rather, the MSDS 

recognizes that PU foam products when 

exposed to fire will melt into liquid and 

the flash point of the liquids is >500 °F, 

which is outside of the range and 

criteria of Flammable liquid or 

Combustible liquid, as defined in 49 

CFR 173.120. 

(4) The safety implications of the 

proposals in the petition were given 

careful considerations as we went 

through the process of determining 

whether regulatory action was needed. 

While we understand the intent of the 

NASFM to improve safety of emergency 

responders, anticipated safety benefits 

associated with the transportation of PU 

foam would be insignificant, since 

emergency responders are already 

trained to be aware of hazards 

associated with vehicle fires due to 

components built into the vehicle, many 

of which employ vinyl and other 

polymers because of their strength and 

durability. 

(5) The NASFM stated in the petition 

that this should not be considered a 

significant rulemaking because there are 

a limited number of carriers 

transporting bulk PU foam. However, if 

the proposal to classify PU foam as a 

hazardous material was adopted, it 

could be applied universally to all PU 

foam products. To attempt to identify, 

classify, and mark all of these articles 

and substances for purposes of 

transportation in commerce would be a 

much larger impact, greater than 

transportation. The costs associated 

with implementing the petition would 

far exceed the benefits. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 31, 

2011. 

Magdy El-Sibaie, 

Associate Administrator for Hazardous 

Materials Safety. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8103 Filed 4–5–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[Docket No. FD 35237] 

City of Davenport, Iowa—Construction 

and Operation Exemption—in Scott 

County, Iowa 

By petition filed on July 21, 2009, the 

City of Davenport, Iowa (the City) seeks 

an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502 

from the prior approval requirements of 

49 U.S.C. 10901 to construct 

approximately 2.8 miles of rail line in 

southern Eldridge, northern Davenport, 

and an unincorporated area of Scott 

County, Iowa. The new line will provide 

the Eastern Iowa Industrial Center, an 

industrial park, with rail access. The 

City will hire an operator to provide 

service on the line, but the City also will 

be required to ensure continued rail 

service. 

In a decision served on October 19, 

2009, the Board instituted a proceeding 

under 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). No comments 

opposing the petition have been filed. 

The Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA), the lead Federal agency on this 

rail project, and the City issued an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) for 

public review and comment on March 

17, 2008. On July 8, 2008, the FHWA 

issued its Record and Finding of No 

Significant Impact and recommended 3 

environmental conditions to mitigate 

the impacts of the project. After the 

Board’s Office of Environmental 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

19188 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2011 / Notices 

Analysis (OEA) independently reviewed 

the FHWA EA, OEA prepared and 

issued on January 28, 2010, a Review of 

Environmental Matters and Final 

Environmental Recommendations in 

which OEA recommended that the 

Board adopt the FHWA EA and impose 

the 3 environmental conditions 

recommended by the FHWA. Due to a 

subsequent proposed change by the City 

in project design and in the rail 

alignment, OEA, the FHWA, the Iowa 

Department of Transportation, and the 

City conducted a reevaluation of the 

project. In December 2010, the FHWA 

and OEA determined that no 

supplemental environmental review 

would be required and that the same 3 

environmental conditions should be 

imposed. 

After considering the entire record, 

including both the transportation 

aspects of the petition and the potential 

environmental issues, the Board granted 

the requested construction and 

operation exemption in a decision 

served today, subject to compliance 

with the environmental mitigation 

measures listed in the Appendix to the 

decision. Petitions to reopen must be 

filed by April 26, 2011. 

Board decisions and notices are 

available on our Web site at http:// 

www.stb.dot.gov. 

Decided: March 30, 2011. 

By the Board, Chairman Elliott and 

Commissioner Mulvey. 

Jeffrey Herzig, 

Clearance Clerk. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8158 Filed 4–5–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

U.S.-CHINA ECONOMIC AND 

SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION 

Notice of Open Public Hearing 

AGENCY: U.S.-China Economic and 

Security Review Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of open public hearing— 

April 13, 2011 Washington, DC. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the 

following hearing of the U.S.-China 

Economic and Security Review 

Commission. 

Name: William A. Reinsch, Chairman 

of the U.S.-China Economic and 

Security Review Commission. 

The Commission is mandated by 

Congress to investigate, assess, and 

report to Congress annually on ‘‘the 

national security implications of the 

economic relationship between the 

United States and the People’s Republic 

of China.’’ 

Pursuant to this mandate, the 

Commission will hold a public hearing 

in Washington, DC on April 13, 2011, to 

address ‘‘China’s Current and Emerging 

Foreign Policy Priorities.’’ 

Background: This is the fifth public 

hearing the Commission will hold 

during its 2011 report cycle to collect 

input from leading academic, industry, 

and government experts on national 

security implications of the U.S. 

bilateral trade and economic 

relationship with China. The April 13 

hearing will examine emerging issues 

and new interest groups in Chinese 

foreign policy, as well as China’s 

relationships with select countries of 

concern to the United States. The April 

13 hearing will be co-chaired by 

Commissioners Carolyn Bartholomew 

and Peter Brookes. 

Any interested party may file a 

written statement by April 13, 2011, by 

mailing to the contact below. A portion 

of each panel will include a question 

and answer period between the 

Commissioners and the witnesses. 

Transcripts of past Commission 

public hearings may be obtained from 

the USCC Web Site http:// 

www.uscc.gov. 

Date and Time: Wednesday, April 13, 

2011, 8:40 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Eastern 

Standard Time. A detailed agenda for 

the hearing will be posted to the 

Commission’s Web Site at http:// 

www.uscc.gov as soon as available. 

ADDRESSES: The hearing will be held on 

Capitol Hill in Room 216 of the Hart 

Senate Office Building, located at 

Constitution Avenue and 2nd Street, 

NE., in Washington, DC 20002. Public 

seating is limited to about 50 people on 

a first come, first served basis. Advance 

reservations are not required. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any 

member of the public seeking further 

information concerning the hearing 

should contact Michael Danis, 

Executive Director for the U.S.-China 

Economic and Security Review 

Commission, 444 North Capitol Street, 

NW., Suite 602, Washington DC 20001; 

phone: 202–624–1407, or via e-mail at 

contact@uscc.gov. 

Authority: Congress created the U.S.-China 

Economic and Security Review Commission 

in 2000 in the National Defense 

Authorization Act (Pub. L. 106–398), as 

amended by Division P of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (Pub. L. 

108–7), as amended by Public Law 109–108 

(November 22, 2005). 

Dated: March 31, 2011. 

Michael Danis, 

Executive Director, U.S.-China Economic and 

Security Review Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8078 Filed 4–5–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1137–00–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

Joint Biomedical Laboratory Research 

and Development and Clinical Science 

Research and Development Services 

Scientific Merit Review Board; Notice 

of Meetings 

The Department of Veterans Affairs 

gives notice under the Public Law 92– 

463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) 

that the panels of the Joint Biomedical 

Laboratory Research and Development 

and Clinical Science Research and 

Development Services Scientific Merit 

Review Board will meet from 8 a.m. to 

5 p.m. on the dates indicated below: 

Panel Date(s) Location 

Hematology ............................................................................................... May 25, 2011 ................................. L’Enfant Plaza Hotel. 

Surgery ..................................................................................................... May 25, 2011 ................................. Crowne Plaza DC/Silver Spring. 

Endocrinology-B ........................................................................................ May 26, 2011 ................................. L’Enfant Plaza Hotel. 

Endocrinology-A ........................................................................................ June 2–3, 2011 .............................. L’Enfant Plaza Hotel. 

Infectious Diseases-B ............................................................................... June 2, 2011 .................................. Hamilton Crowne Plaza. 

Nephrology ................................................................................................ June 2, 2011 .................................. Crowne Plaza DC/Silver Spring. 

Neurobiology-A ......................................................................................... June 2–3, 2011 .............................. Crowne Plaza DC/Silver Spring. 

Neurobiology-E ......................................................................................... June 3, 2011 .................................. Crowne Plaza DC/Silver Spring. 

Pulmonary Medicine ................................................................................. June 3, 2011 .................................. Crowne Plaza DC/Silver Spring. 

Cellular & Molecular Medicine .................................................................. June 6, 2011 .................................. Crowne Plaza DC/Silver Spring. 

Epidemiology ............................................................................................ June 7, 2011 .................................. VA Central Office.* 

Mental Hlth & Behav Sci-B ....................................................................... June 7–8, 2011 .............................. L’Enfant Plaza Hotel. 

Mental Hlth & Behav Sci-A ....................................................................... June 8–9, 2011 .............................. L’Enfant Plaza Hotel. 

Neurobiology-C ......................................................................................... June 8–10, 2011 ............................ Crowne Plaza DC/Silver Spring. 

Oncology ................................................................................................... June 9–10, 2011 ............................ L’Enfant Plaza Hotel. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES