Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2011 / Notices 19179 

Public Comments Invited: You are 

asked to comment on any aspect of this 

information collection, including: 

(1) Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the U.S. 

DOT’s performance, including whether 

the information will have practical 

utility; (2) the accuracy of the U.S. 

DOT’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed information collection; (3) 

ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, 

and clarity of the collected information; 

and (4) ways that the burden could be 

minimized, including the use of 

electronic technology, without reducing 

the quality of the collected information. 

The agency will summarize and/or 

include your comments in the request 

for OMB’s clearance of this information 

collection. 

Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; 

and 49 CFR 1.48. 

Issued On: March 31, 2011. 

Juli Huynh, 

Chief, Management Programs and Analysis 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8101 Filed 4–5–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2011–0030] 

Spyker Automobielen B.V.; Receipt of 

Application for Extension of 

Temporary Exemption From Certain 

Requirements of FMVSS No. 208 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for 

extension of a temporary exemption 

from certain provisions of Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 

208, Occupant Crash Protection. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

procedures in 49 CFR Part 555, Spyker 

Automobielen B.V. (Spyker) has applied 

for an extension of a previously granted 

temporary exemption from certain 

advanced air bag requirements of 

FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash 

Protection, for its C line of vehicles. The 

basis of the application is that 

compliance would cause substantial 

economic hardship to a manufacturer 

that has tried in good faith to comply 

with the standard. 

NHTSA is publishing this notice of 

receipt of the application in accordance 

with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 

30113(b)(2), and has made no judgment 

on the merits of the application. 

DATES: You should submit your 

comments not later than May 6, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William H. Shakely, Office of the Chief 

Counsel, NCC–112, National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 4th 

Floor, Room W41–212, Washington, DC 

20590. Telephone: (202) 366–2992; Fax: 

(202) 366–3820. 

Comments: We invite you to submit 

comments on the application described 

above. You may submit comments 

identified by the docket number at the 

heading of this notice by any of the 

following methods: 

• Web Site: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

on the electronic docket site by clicking 

on ‘‘Help and Information’’ or ‘‘Help/ 

Info.’’ 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number. Note that all comments 

received will be posted without change 

to http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided. 

Please see the Privacy Act discussion 

below. We will consider all comments 

received before the close of business on 

the comment closing date indicated 

above. To the extent possible, we will 

also consider comments filed after the 

closing date. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov at any time or to 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. Telephone: 

(202) 366–9826. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://www.dot.gov/ 

privacy.html. 

Confidential Business Information: If 

you wish to submit any information 

under a claim of confidentiality, you 

should submit three copies of your 

complete submission, including the 

information you claim to be confidential 

business information, to the Chief 

Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. In addition, you should 

submit two copies, from which you 

have deleted the claimed confidential 

business information, to Docket 

Management at the address given above. 

When you send a comment containing 

information claimed to be confidential 

business information, you should 

include a cover letter setting forth the 

information specified in our 

confidential business information 

regulation (49 CFR part 512). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview of Petition for Economic 

Hardship Exemption 

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113 

and the procedures in 49 CFR part 555, 

Spyker has submitted a petition (dated 

October 13, 2010) asking the agency for 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICESEN06AP11.009</GPH>
19180 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2011 / Notices 

1The Safety Act is codified as Title 49, United 

States Code, Chapter 301. 

2Spyker has requested confidential treatment 

under 49 CFR Part 512 for certain business and 

financial information submitted as part of its 

petition for temporary exemption. Accordingly, the 

information placed in the docket does not contain 

the information that is the subject of this request. 

3 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(1). 

4See, e.g., grant of petition to Panoz, 72 FR 28759 

(May 22, 2007); grant of petition to Koenigsegg, 72 

FR 17608 (April 9, 2007). 

5 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(1). 

6 49 CFR 555.6(a)(2). 

an extension of a temporary exemption 

from certain advanced air bag 

requirements of FMVSS No. 208 for its 

C line of vehicles. The existing 

exemption was set to expire on 

December 15, 2010. The basis for the 

application is that compliance would 

cause substantial economic hardship to 

a manufacturer that has tried in good 

faith to comply with the standard. After 

filing its petition, Spyker submitted 

additional information regarding its 

compliance efforts. 

The agency closely examines and 

considers the information provided by 

manufacturers in support of these 

factors, and, in addition, pursuant to 49 

U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(A), determines 

whether an exemption is in the public 

interest and consistent with the Safety 

Act.1 Spyker requested an extension 

until May 15, 2012. Copies of Spyker’s 

petition and its supplemental 

statement 2 are available for review and 

have been placed in the docket for this 

notice. 

A manufacturer is eligible to apply for 

a hardship exemption if its total motor 

vehicle production in its most recent 

year of production did not exceed 

10,000 vehicles, as determined by the 

NHTSA Administrator (49 U.S.C. 

30113). 

Additionally, although 49 U.S.C. 

30113(b) states that exemptions from a 

Safety Act standard are to be granted on 

a ‘‘temporary basis,’’ 3 the statute also 

expressly provides for renewal of an 

exemption on reapplication. 

Manufacturers are nevertheless 

cautioned that the agency’s decision to 

grant an initial petition in no way 

predetermines that the agency will 

repeatedly grant renewal petitions, 

thereby imparting semi-permanent 

exemption from a safety standard. 

Exempted manufacturers seeking 

renewal must bear in mind that the 

agency is directed to consider financial 

hardship as but one factor, along with 

the manufacturer’s on-going good faith 

efforts to comply with the regulation, 

the public interest, and consistency 

with the Safety Act generally, as well as 

other such matters provided in the 

statute. 

We note that under 49 CFR 555.8(e), 

‘‘If an application for renewal of a 

temporary exemption that meets the 

requirements of § 555.5 has been filed 

not later than 60 days before the 

termination date of an exemption, the 

exemption does not terminate until the 

Administrator grants or denies the 

application for renewal.’’ In this case, 

Spyker submitted its petition for 

extension by the deadline stated in 49 

CFR 555.8(e). 

II. Advanced Air Bag Requirements and 

Small Volume Manufacturers 

The agency published the final rule 

requiring advanced air bags in May 

2000. The rule was intended to improve 

protection for occupants of different 

sizes, belted and unbelted, under 

FMVSS No. 208, while minimizing the 

risk to infants, children, and other 

occupants from injuries and deaths 

caused by air bags. The rule 

accomplished this by establishing new 

test requirements and injury criteria and 

specifying the use of an entire family of 

test dummies: The then-existing dummy 

representing 50th percentile adult 

males, and new dummies representing 

5th percentile adult females, 6-year-old 

children, 3-year-old children, and 1- 

year-old infants. 

The advanced air bag requirements 

were a culmination of a comprehensive 

plan that the agency announced in 1996 

to address the adverse effects of air bags. 

This plan also included an extensive 

consumer education program to 

encourage the placement of children in 

rear seats. The new requirements were 

phased in beginning with the 2004 

model year. The requirements did not 

apply to small manufacturers until 

September 1, 2006. 

In recent years, NHTSA has addressed 

a number of petitions for exemption 

from the advanced air bag requirements 

of FMVSS No. 208. The majority of 

these requests have come from small 

manufacturers that have petitioned on 

the basis of substantial economic 

hardship to a manufacturer that has 

tried in good faith to comply with the 

standard. 

Although NHTSA has granted a 

number of these petitions in situations 

where the manufacturer is supplying 

standard air bags in lieu of advanced air 

bags,4 NHTSA is considering (1) 

whether it is in the public interest to 

continue to grant such petitions, 

particularly in the same manner as in 

the past, given the number of years 

these requirements have now been in 

effect and the benefits of advanced air 

bags, and (2) to the extent such petitions 

are granted, what plans and 

countermeasures to protect child and 

infant occupants, short of compliance 

with the advanced air bags, should be 

expected. 

Given the passage of time since the 

advanced air bag requirements were 

established and have been 

implemented, and in light of the 

benefits of advanced air bags, NHTSA is 

concerned that it may not be in the 

public interest to continue to grant 

exemptions from these requirements, 

particularly in the same manner as in 

the past. The costs of compliance with 

the advanced air bag requirements of 

FMVSS No. 208 are costs that all 

entrants to the U.S. automobile 

marketplace should expect to bear. 

Furthermore, NHTSA understands that, 

in contrast to the initial years after the 

advanced air bag requirements went 

into effect, low volume manufacturers 

now have access to advanced air bag 

technology. Accordingly, NHTSA 

tentatively concludes that the expense 

of advanced air bag technology may not 

now be sufficient, in and of itself, to 

justify the grant of a petition for a 

hardship exemption from the advanced 

air bag requirements. 

NHTSA further notes that exemptions 

from motor vehicle safety standards are 

to be granted on a ‘‘temporary basis.’’ 5

In prior petitions, NHTSA has granted 

temporary exemptions from the 

advanced air bag requirements as a 

means of affording eligible 

manufacturers a transition period to 

comply with the exempted standard. 

Accordingly, in deciding whether to 

grant an exemption based on substantial 

economic hardship, NHTSA ordinarily 

considers the steps that the 

manufacturer has already taken to 

achieve compliance, as well as the 

future steps the manufacturer plans to 

take during the exemption period and 

the estimated date by which full 

compliance will be achieved.6

NHTSA invites comment on whether 

and in what circumstances (e.g., nature 

of vehicles, number of vehicles, level of 

efforts to comply with the requirements, 

timing as to number of years since the 

requirements were implemented, etc.) it 

should continue to grant petitions for 

exemptions from the advanced air bag 

requirements of FMVSS No. 208. We 

note that any policy statements we may 

make in this area would not have the 

effect of precluding manufacturers from 

submitting subsequent petitions for 

exemption. However, we believe it 

could be helpful for manufacturers to 

know our general views in advance of 

submitting a petition. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2011 / Notices 19181 

7See 74 FR 12926–27. 

8See 74 FR 12925. 

9All dollar values are based on an exchange rate 

of 1 Euro = $1.30. 

III. Spyker’s Petition 

Background—Spyker, a Netherlands 

corporation, was founded in 2000 and 

has been producing a small number of 

luxury sports cars since February 2002. 

On July 6, 2005, NHTSA granted Spyker 

a three-year hardship exemption from 

several FMVSSs, including the ‘‘basic’’ 

air bag requirements and advanced air 

bag provisions of FMVSS No. 208 

(S4.1.5.3; S14), as well as 49 CFR part 

581, Bumper Standard (70 FR 39007 

(July 6, 2005)). This exemption was set 

to expire on June 15, 2008. In this same 

grant, NHTSA also exempted the first 

ten Spyker C8 vehicles imported into 

the United States from S7 of FMVSS No. 

108, Lamps, reflective devices, and 

associated equipment. 

On March 25, 2009, NHTSA granted 

Spyker a 30-month limited extension 

from the child and 5th percentile adult 

female driver out-of-position portions of 

the advanced air bag provisions of 

FMVSS No. 208 (S19, S21, S23, and 

S25) (74 FR 12925 (Mar. 25, 2009)). This 

extension was set to expire on December 

15, 2010, but has been extended 

automatically by the filing of Spyker’s 

application for an extension. 

Requested Exemption—Spyker has 

applied for a further extension of its 

temporary exemption. Specifically, 

Spyker requests that the exemption from 

the child and 5th percentile adult 

female driver out-of-position portions of 

the advanced air bag provisions of 

FMVSS No. 208 (S19, S21, S23, and 

S25) be extended until May 15, 2012. 

Eligibility—A manufacturer is eligible 

to apply for a hardship exemption if its 

total motor vehicle production in its 

most recent year of production did not 

exceed 10,000 vehicles, as determined 

by the NHTSA Administrator (49 U.S.C. 

30113(d)). In determining whether a 

manufacturer of a vehicle meets that 

criterion, NHTSA considers whether a 

second vehicle manufacturer also might 

be deemed the manufacturer of that 

vehicle. The statutory provisions 

governing motor vehicle safety (49 

U.S.C. Chapter 301) do not state that a 

manufacturer has substantial 

responsibility as manufacturer of a 

vehicle simply because it owns or 

controls a second manufacturer that 

assembled that vehicle. However, the 

agency considers the statutory 

definition of ‘‘manufacturer’’ (49 U.S.C. 

30102) to be sufficiently broad to 

include sponsors, depending on the 

circumstances. Thus, NHTSA has stated 

that a manufacturer may be deemed to 

be a sponsor and thus a manufacturer of 

a vehicle assembled by a second 

manufacturer if the first manufacturer 

had a substantial role in the 

development and manufacturing 

process of that vehicle. 

Spyker Automobielen B.V. is a small 

volume manufacturer of luxury sports 

cars. Since 2005, Spyker Automobielen 

B.V. has manufactured less than 100 

vehicles annually worldwide, and the 

company projects that it will 

manufacture 103 vehicles in 2011. 

However, the petition stated that Spyker 

Automobielen B.V. is a wholly owned 

subsidiary of Spyker Cars NV, a publicly 

traded Netherlands corporation. In 

2008, when Spyker Automobielen B.V. 

was granted a limited extension of its 

temporary exemption, Spyker Cars NV 

had no ownership interest in any other 

vehicle manufacturer nor was it under 

any common control with another 

automobile manufacturer.7 Since that 

time, Spyker Cars NV has acquired Saab 

Automobile AG, a large Swedish car 

manufacturer. Spyker asserts that 

Spyker Automobielen B.V. is financially 

and operationally independent from 

Saab Automobile AG and that, based on 

past NHTSA determinations regarding 

the issue of sponsorship, Spyker 

Automobielen B.V. remains eligible for 

a temporary exemption based on 

economic hardship. 

Since filing its petition, Spyker has 

informed the agency that Spyker Cars 

NV plans to sell Spyker Automobielen 

B.V. to CPP Global Holdings, a private 

holding company in the United 

Kingdom. Because of the relationship 

between Spyker Automobielen B.V., 

Spyker Cars NV, and Saab Automobile 

AG, and, in light of the plans to sell 

Spyker Automobielen B.V. to CPP 

Global Holdings, NHTSA will closely 

examine whether Spyker is eligible for 

a financial hardship exemption. NHTSA 

specifically requests comments on the 

issue of Spyker’s eligibility. 

Economic Hardship—Spyker stated 

that its previously established financial 

hardship 8 continues due to the 

worldwide economic recession, which 

resulted in fewer global sales than 

Spyker had predicted. Specifically, 

Spyker suffered a net operating loss of 

approximately 131,971,000 Euros 

($171,562,300) 9 from 2004 to 2009. 

Spyker projected a further loss in 2010 

of 12,000,000 Euros ($15,600,000). 

Moreover, based on 2011–2013 

projections, Spyker estimated that if the 

extension is denied, Spyker will bear a 

loss of over 32,465,000 Euros 

($42,204,500) during that time, as 

opposed to a loss of approximately 

8,132,000 Euros ($10,571,600) if the 

extension is granted, representing a 

difference of 24,333,000 Euros 

($31,632,900). Spyker also stated that 

the loss of sales in the U.S. that would 

result if the extension is denied could 

not be made up in the rest of the world 

because the U.S. is the largest and most 

important market for the vehicle. Spyker 

argued that such consequences 

demonstrate ‘‘substantial economic 

hardship’’ within the meaning of 49 

U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(i). 

Good Faith Efforts to Comply—Spyker 

stated that when it filed its original 

petition for exemption in 2004, its C 

line vehicles had no air bags. Spyker 

indicated that it started developing an 

‘‘interim’’ driver air bag system for the C 

line vehicles, which went into 

production in December 2007. 

Additionally, Spyker stated that it began 

development of an ‘‘interim’’ passenger 

air bag for the C line in April 2007, 

which went into production in March 

2008. 

Spyker indicated that its ‘‘interim’’ air 

bag system is capable of dual 

performance and meets the 35 mph 

belted test for both the driver and 

passenger positions. Spyker stated that 

this latter achievement brings its 

vehicles into compliance with 

paragraph S14.7 of FMVSS No. 208 (35 

mph belted test using 5th percentile 

adult female dummies) two years ahead 

of the September 1, 2012 deadline. 

Additionally, Spyker indicated that its 

C8 vehicle meets the requirements of 

S14.5, S15, and S17. However, Spyker 

stated that the ‘‘interim’’ air bag system 

still cannot meet all of the advanced air 

bag requirements. 

Spyker stated that it is continuing to 

work with Continental to develop and 

test its advanced air bag system and 

expects compliance by May 15, 2012. In 

support of its statements, Spyker 

submitted a detailed schedule for 

development of the advanced air bag 

system showing completion by May 

2012. Spyker stated that it investigated 

using Saab facilities and equipment to 

develop its advanced air bag systems, 

but the company decided to continue 

working with Continental. 

Public Interest—The petitioner put 

forth several arguments in favor of a 

finding that the requested exemption is 

consistent with the public interest and 

would not have a significant adverse 

impact on safety. Specifically: 

1. Spyker stated that the exempted 

vehicles will comply with all FMVSSs 

other than the provisions that are the 

subject of this extension request. 

2. The petitioner stated that an 

exemption will benefit U.S. 

employment and U.S. companies 

because Spyker vehicles are distributed 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

19182 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2011 / Notices 

by a U.S. company, Spyker of North 

America, and are sold and serviced in 

the U.S. through a network of 18 

dealers. Spyker argued that denial of an 

extension will negatively impact these 

companies. 

3. Spyker argued that if the exemption 

is not granted, U.S. consumer choice 

would be harmed and that the agency 

has long maintained that the National 

Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 

seeks, if possible, to avoid limiting 

consumer choice. 

4. The petitioner argued that given 

their exotic design and highperformance nature, the C line vehicles 

are not expected to be used extensively, 

nor are they expected to carry children 

with any frequency. 

NHTSA specifically invites comment 

on the likelihood that a child or infant 

will be a passenger in a Spyker vehicle 

sold in the U.S. 

5. Spyker stated that as of the 

submission date of its application for 

extension, approximately 60 exempted 

C line vehicles have been imported into 

the U.S. and there have been no reports 

of any air bag-related injuries. 

6. Spyker stated that an important 

safety feature that the C line vehicles 

offer is enhanced occupant protection. 

The petitioner stated that occupants are 

positioned in a protective ‘‘cell’’ because 

the main chassis structure is built 

around them. 

Agency Review of Petition—Upon 

receiving a petition, NHTSA conducts 

an initial review of the petition with 

respect to whether the petition is 

complete and whether the petitioner 

appears to be eligible to apply for the 

requested exemption. The agency has 

tentatively concluded that the petition 

is complete. The agency has not made 

any judgment on the eligibility of the 

petitioner or the merits of the 

application, and is placing a nonconfidential copy of the petition in the 

docket. 

IV. Issuance of Notice of Final Action 

We are providing a 30-day comment 

period. After considering public 

comments and other available 

information, we will publish a notice of 

final action on the application in the 

Federal Register. 

Issued on: March 31, 2011. 

Joseph S. Carra, 

Acting Associate Administrator for 

Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8082 Filed 4–5–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

[Docket No. PHMSA–2006–26275; Notice 

No. 11–3] 

Petition for Rulemaking— 

Classification of Polyurethane Foam 

and Certain Finished Products 

Containing Polyurethane Foam as 

Hazardous Materials 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice; closing of comment 

period and denial of petition P–1491. 

SUMMARY: On March 30, 2007, a notice 

[72 FR 15184] was published in the 

Federal Register soliciting comments on 

the merits of a petition for rulemaking 

filed by the National Association of 

State Fire Marshals (NASFM). The 

NASFM petitioned PHMSA to classify 

polyurethane foam and certain finished 

products containing polyurethane foam 

as hazardous material for purposes of 

transportation in commerce. The 

comment period for the notice closed 

June 28, 2007. Subsequently, on October 

19, 2007, the NASFM requested that 

action be deferred on the petition, and 

that the public docket be re-opened to 

allow interested persons to submit 

additional comments on the March 30, 

2007 notice, and on supplemental 

information submitted by the petitioner. 

On May 7, 2008, a notice [73 FR 25825] 

was published in the Federal Register 

re-opening the comment period and 

indicating that it would remain open 

until further notice had been published 

in the Federal Register. Since reopening of the comment period, no 

additional or supplemental information 

have been submitted to PHMSA to 

support the contention that 

polyurethane foam and certain finished 

products containing polyurethane foam 

should be designated as hazardous 

materials when transported in 

commerce. As well, no further 

comments have been submitted to 

suggest we continue to pursue any 

further action on this subject. 

Therefore, in light of the fact that the 

comment period had been extended and 

remained opened for more than three 

years, with no further comment or data 

having been submitted to PHMSA to 

support proposals contained in petition 

P–1491 or the NASFM’s October 19, 

2007 supplemental letter, issuance of 

this notice closes the comment period 

for the March 30, 2007 Notice [72 FR 

15184] and the May 7, 2008 Notice [73 

FR 25825], under Docket No. PHMSA– 

2006–26275. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov or Docket 

Operations, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building, Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, Routing Symbol 

M–30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590–0001, between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal Holidays. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of any written 

communications and comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

document (or signing the document, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78), which 

may also be found at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Helen L. Engrum, Office of Hazardous 

Materials Standards (202) 366–8553, 

Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On October 31, 2006, the National 

Association of State Fire Marshals 

(NASFM) submitted a petition for 

rulemaking to the U. S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT) through the 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration (PHMSA) under the 

provisions of 49 CFR 106.95 (formerly 

49 CFR 106.31). The NASFM requested 

that the Hazardous Materials 

Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171– 

180) be amended to classify 

polyurethane (PU) foam and certain 

finished products containing PU foam 

as a hazardous material for purposes of 

transportation in commerce. The 

NASFM is made up of senior-level 

public safety officials from the 50 States 

and the District of Columbia. The 

NASFM petition was received and 

acknowledged by PHMSA and assigned 

petition number P–1491; Docket No. 

PHMSA–2006–26275. On March 30, 

2007, a notice [72 FR 15184] was 

published in the Federal Register 

soliciting comments on the merits of the 

petition for rulemaking filed by the 

NASFM. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES