Beall Corporation; Receipt of Application for a Temporary Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, 7102-7103 [E9-2975]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
7102
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 28 / Thursday, February 12, 2009 / Notices
Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety (Advocates) expressed opposition
to FMCSA’s policy to grant exemptions
from the FMCSR, including the driver
qualification standards. Specifically,
Advocates: (1) Objects to the manner in
which FMCSA presents driver
information to the public and makes
safety determinations; (2) objects to the
Agency’s reliance on conclusions drawn
from the vision waiver program; (3)
claims the Agency has misinterpreted
statutory language on the granting of
exemptions (49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315); and finally (4) suggests that a
1999 Supreme Court decision affects the
legal validity of vision exemptions.
The issues raised by Advocates were
addressed at length in 64 FR 51568
(September 23, 1999), 64 FR 66962
(November 30, 1999), 64 FR 69586
(December 13, 1999), 65 FR 159 (January
3, 2000), 65 FR 57230 (September 21,
2000), and 66 FR 13825 (March 7, 2001).
We will not address these points again
here, but refer interested parties to those
earlier discussions.
Conclusion
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
The Agency has not received any
adverse evidence on any of these drivers
that indicates that safety is being
compromised. Based upon its
evaluation of the 26 renewal
applications, FMCSA renews the
Federal vision exemptions for Paul G.
Albrecht, Elijah A. Allen, Jr., David W.
Brown, Monty G. Calderon, David J.
Caldwell, Walden V. Clarke, Awilda S.
Colon, David Hagadorn, Zane G. Harvey,
Jr., Jeffrey M. Keyser, Donnie A. Kildow,
Carl M. McIntire, Daniel A. McNabb,
David G. Meyers, Robert E. Moore,
Thomas L. Oglesby, Michael J. Paul,
Russell A. Payne, Rodgey M. Pegg,
Raymond E. Peterson, Zbigniew P.
Pietranik, John C. Rodriguez, James A.
Walker, Richard A. Westfall, Charles E.
Wood, and Joseph F. Wood.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, each renewal exemption
willbe valid for 2 years unless revoked
earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will
be revoked if: (1) The person fails to
comply with the terms and conditions
of the exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than
was maintained before it was granted; or
(3) continuation of the exemption would
not be consistent with the goals and
objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
Issued on: February 5, 2009.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and
Program Development.
[FR Doc. E9–2954 Filed 2–11–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:03 Feb 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0008]
Beall Corporation; Receipt of
Application for a Temporary
Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard No. 224
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for
temporary exemption from Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 224, Rear impact protection.
SUMMARY: We are asking for comments
on the application of Beall Corporation
for a temporary exemption from the
requirements of FMVSS No. 224. The
basis for the application is that
compliance would cause substantial
economic hardship to the manufacturer
which has tried in good faith to comply
with the standard.
We are publishing this notice of
receipt of the application in accordance
with our regulations on the subject. This
action does not mean that we have made
a judgment about the merits of the
application.
DATES: You should submit your
comments not later than March 16,
2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ari
Scott, Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC–
112, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., West Building 4th Floor,
Room W41–326, Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone: (202) 366–2992; Fax: (202)
366–3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113 and
the procedures in 49 CFR Part 555, Beall
Corporation, d/b/a Power Truckweld
(‘‘Beall’’), a Dump Body trailer
manufacturer, has petitioned the agency
for a temporary exemption from the rear
impact protection requirements in
FMVSS No. 224 (49 CFR 571.224). The
basis for the application is that
compliance would cause substantial
economic hardship to the manufacturer,
which has tried in good faith to comply
with the standard. A copy of the
petition has been placed in the docket
for this notice.1 Beall has requested a
three-year hardship exemption.
1 To view the application, go to https://
www.regulations.gov and enter the docket number
set forth in the heading of this document. The
company has withdrawn its request for confidential
treatment of certain business and financial
information submitted in its petition for temporary
exemption.
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Beall is a company that manufactures
trailers in Washington and Oregon. The
company has been in existence for over
a decade. Beall states that the total
number of vehicles produced in the 12month period prior to filing the petition
was 79. Of those vehicles, 64 were
dump body type trailers that would be
covered by the requested temporary
exemption. The largest number of Dump
Body trailers the petitioner sold in
recent years is 79 in 2005.
Beall states that the denial of the
requested exemption will result in
substantial economic hardship.
According to the statements of the
petitioner, the denial of exemption
could cost the company 40 percent of its
projected sales during the period
covered by the exemption, a situation
which could cause the layoff of 100% of
its employees. Additionally, Beall
asserts that if the exemption is denied,
it would lose the entire $800,000
goodwill investment associated with the
2001 purchase of Pioneer Truckweld. It
also notes that several of its competitors,
such as Reliance and Columbia Body
Manufacturing, have received
exemptions from FMVSS No. 224, and
that it needs to be able to compete
effectively with these entities in the
dump body trailer sales market, as well
as the dump body truck market, as many
customers will not allow a manufacturer
to bid on a dump body truck if they
cannot supply a dump body trailer.
Beall also provides specific financial
information with its statement for the
years 2004 through 2006. In 2004, it
indicates that it posted a loss of over
$200,000. In 2005, that loss was
approximately $138,000. Finally, in
2006, the total loss was over $53,000. In
the event that this petition is denied,
Beall estimates that it will lose over
$24,000 in the year following the denial.
While Beall did not provide specific
financial information regarding the
projected financial impact of a grant, it
has stated that such a grant is necessary
for the survival of the Power Truckweld
division.
The petitioner believes that it is
impossible to estimate the cost of
compliance because the method by
which compliance may be achieved is
unknown at this time, and requires
substantial further engineering analysis.
Beall states that it has tried,
unsuccessfully, to design or outsource
the design of a device that would satisfy
FMVSS No. 224 for dump body trailers.
In explaining why it has not been
currently able to meet the rear impact
protection requirements, Beall points to
a number a technical challenges
associated with designing a compliant
rear impact protection system. Namely,
E:\FR\FM\12FEN1.SGM
12FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 28 / Thursday, February 12, 2009 / Notices
it states that a device designed to satisfy
FMVSS No. 224 for dump body
applications must also be capable of
moving clear, so that the hopper of the
paving machines can pass through the
space initially occupied by the rear
impact protection device. It argues that
if the paving machine cannot position
itself underneath the dump body, the
asphalt will spill out as the dump body
raises and unloads the asphalt. The
petitioner states that it has been
pursuing the design of acceptable
systems in a joint project with the
Mechanical Engineering department at
Montana State University, using
techniques such as Finite Element
analysis and physical testing devices. In
addition, it claims to have designed
acceptable guards for a number of nonasphalt paving applications.
Beall states it has considered several
alternative means of compliance. These
include plastically deforming devices
and hinged and retractable devices.
However, the petitioner believes that
there are a number of problems with
regard to these solutions. First, due to
clearance issues, space for retractable
devices is not readily available, and
redesign of the vehicle to accommodate
such devices could result in decreased
stability. Second, the petitioner states
that asphalt paving surface has the effect
of rendering these sorts of devices
unusable over time. Finally, Beall notes
that trailers could be operated with
these devices in the retracted position,
resulting in no safety benefits.
Beall states that under a temporary
exemption, it would continue to pursue
a compliant rear impact protection
device that would meet the current
standards, including attachment and
methods of maintenance to ensure
proper function while in service. The
petitioner states that it will continue to
work with others in the paving industry
to develop an acceptable solution.
Beall’s believes that the public
interest would benefit from this
exemption, stating the following:
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
It would be in the public’s interest to allow
Pioneer Truckweld to manufacture the
equipment required to improve and expand
the road building effort in the Western
United States while an intense effort is
maintained by Pioneer Truckweld to design
an acceptable under ride device that will
perform well in a paving operation.
Additionally, in its petition, Beall
notes that the failure to receive an
exemption could cause the closure of
the Pioneer Truckweld operation and
the layoff of 38 employees in U.S.
operations. Also, we note that given the
relatively low number of vehicles
produced by the petitioner over its
history, and the fact that they are
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:03 Feb 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
primarily used in road construction
tasks as opposed to being driven in the
flow of traffic, the safety impact of the
lack of required rear impact protection
equipment is likely to be relatively
small.
How you may comment on the
application: We invite you to submit
comments on the application described
above. You may submit comments
identified by docket number at the
heading of this notice by any of the
following methods:
• Web Site: https://
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
https://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 https://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 https://
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
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7103
may visit https://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).
Issued on: February 5, 2009.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E9–2975 Filed 2–11–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
Proposed Collection; Comment
Request for Form 4461, 4461–A, and
4461–B
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
SUMMARY: The Department of the
Treasury, as part of its continuing effort
to reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, invites the general public and
other Federal agencies to take this
opportunity to comment on proposed
and/or continuing information
collections, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is
soliciting comments concerning Form
4461, Application for Approval of
Master or Prototype Defined
Contribution Plan; Form 4461–A,
Application for Approval of Master or
Prototye Defined Benefit Plan; Form
4461–B, Application for Approval of
Master or Prototype Plan, Mass
Submitter Adopting Sponsor.
DATES: Written comments should be
received on or before April 13, 2009 to
be assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments
to R. Joseph Durbala, Internal Revenue
E:\FR\FM\12FEN1.SGM
12FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 28 (Thursday, February 12, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7102-7103]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-2975]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0008]
Beall Corporation; Receipt of Application for a Temporary
Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for temporary exemption from
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 224, Rear impact
protection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are asking for comments on the application of Beall
Corporation for a temporary exemption from the requirements of FMVSS
No. 224. The basis for the application is that compliance would cause
substantial economic hardship to the manufacturer which has tried in
good faith to comply with the standard.
We are publishing this notice of receipt of the application in
accordance with our regulations on the subject. This action does not
mean that we have made a judgment about the merits of the application.
DATES: You should submit your comments not later than March 16, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ari Scott, Office of the Chief
Counsel, NCC-112, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 4th Floor, Room W41-326,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2992; Fax: (202) 366-3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113 and the
procedures in 49 CFR Part 555, Beall Corporation, d/b/a Power Truckweld
(``Beall''), a Dump Body trailer manufacturer, has petitioned the
agency for a temporary exemption from the rear impact protection
requirements in FMVSS No. 224 (49 CFR 571.224). The basis for the
application is that compliance would cause substantial economic
hardship to the manufacturer, which has tried in good faith to comply
with the standard. A copy of the petition has been placed in the docket
for this notice.\1\ Beall has requested a three-year hardship
exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To view the application, go to https://www.regulations.gov
and enter the docket number set forth in the heading of this
document. The company has withdrawn its request for confidential
treatment of certain business and financial information submitted in
its petition for temporary exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beall is a company that manufactures trailers in Washington and
Oregon. The company has been in existence for over a decade. Beall
states that the total number of vehicles produced in the 12-month
period prior to filing the petition was 79. Of those vehicles, 64 were
dump body type trailers that would be covered by the requested
temporary exemption. The largest number of Dump Body trailers the
petitioner sold in recent years is 79 in 2005.
Beall states that the denial of the requested exemption will result
in substantial economic hardship. According to the statements of the
petitioner, the denial of exemption could cost the company 40 percent
of its projected sales during the period covered by the exemption, a
situation which could cause the layoff of 100% of its employees.
Additionally, Beall asserts that if the exemption is denied, it would
lose the entire $800,000 goodwill investment associated with the 2001
purchase of Pioneer Truckweld. It also notes that several of its
competitors, such as Reliance and Columbia Body Manufacturing, have
received exemptions from FMVSS No. 224, and that it needs to be able to
compete effectively with these entities in the dump body trailer sales
market, as well as the dump body truck market, as many customers will
not allow a manufacturer to bid on a dump body truck if they cannot
supply a dump body trailer.
Beall also provides specific financial information with its
statement for the years 2004 through 2006. In 2004, it indicates that
it posted a loss of over $200,000. In 2005, that loss was approximately
$138,000. Finally, in 2006, the total loss was over $53,000. In the
event that this petition is denied, Beall estimates that it will lose
over $24,000 in the year following the denial. While Beall did not
provide specific financial information regarding the projected
financial impact of a grant, it has stated that such a grant is
necessary for the survival of the Power Truckweld division.
The petitioner believes that it is impossible to estimate the cost
of compliance because the method by which compliance may be achieved is
unknown at this time, and requires substantial further engineering
analysis. Beall states that it has tried, unsuccessfully, to design or
outsource the design of a device that would satisfy FMVSS No. 224 for
dump body trailers.
In explaining why it has not been currently able to meet the rear
impact protection requirements, Beall points to a number a technical
challenges associated with designing a compliant rear impact protection
system. Namely,
[[Page 7103]]
it states that a device designed to satisfy FMVSS No. 224 for dump body
applications must also be capable of moving clear, so that the hopper
of the paving machines can pass through the space initially occupied by
the rear impact protection device. It argues that if the paving machine
cannot position itself underneath the dump body, the asphalt will spill
out as the dump body raises and unloads the asphalt. The petitioner
states that it has been pursuing the design of acceptable systems in a
joint project with the Mechanical Engineering department at Montana
State University, using techniques such as Finite Element analysis and
physical testing devices. In addition, it claims to have designed
acceptable guards for a number of non-asphalt paving applications.
Beall states it has considered several alternative means of
compliance. These include plastically deforming devices and hinged and
retractable devices. However, the petitioner believes that there are a
number of problems with regard to these solutions. First, due to
clearance issues, space for retractable devices is not readily
available, and redesign of the vehicle to accommodate such devices
could result in decreased stability. Second, the petitioner states that
asphalt paving surface has the effect of rendering these sorts of
devices unusable over time. Finally, Beall notes that trailers could be
operated with these devices in the retracted position, resulting in no
safety benefits.
Beall states that under a temporary exemption, it would continue to
pursue a compliant rear impact protection device that would meet the
current standards, including attachment and methods of maintenance to
ensure proper function while in service. The petitioner states that it
will continue to work with others in the paving industry to develop an
acceptable solution.
Beall's believes that the public interest would benefit from this
exemption, stating the following:
It would be in the public's interest to allow Pioneer Truckweld
to manufacture the equipment required to improve and expand the road
building effort in the Western United States while an intense effort
is maintained by Pioneer Truckweld to design an acceptable under
ride device that will perform well in a paving operation.
Additionally, in its petition, Beall notes that the failure to
receive an exemption could cause the closure of the Pioneer Truckweld
operation and the layoff of 38 employees in U.S. operations. Also, we
note that given the relatively low number of vehicles produced by the
petitioner over its history, and the fact that they are primarily used
in road construction tasks as opposed to being driven in the flow of
traffic, the safety impact of the lack of required rear impact
protection equipment is likely to be relatively small.
How you may comment on the application: We invite you to submit
comments on the application described above. You may submit comments
identified by docket number at the heading of this notice by any of the
following methods:
Web Site: https://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 https://
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 https://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 https://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
https://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).
Issued on: February 5, 2009.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E9-2975 Filed 2-11-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
