42142 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 160 / Thursday, August 20, 2009 / Notices 

PA. Application for surface water 

withdrawal of up to 0.499 mgd. 

13. Project Sponsor and Facility: 

Southwestern Energy Company (Cold 

Creek—Giroux), Herrick Township, 

Bradford County, PA. Application for 

surface water withdrawal of up to 0.249 

mgd. 

14. Project Sponsor and Facility: 

Southwestern Energy Company (Mill 

Creek—Kennedy), Stevens Township, 

Bradford County, PA. Application for 

surface water withdrawal of up to 0.249 

mgd. 

15. Project Sponsor and Facility: 

Southwestern Energy Company (Ross 

Creek—Billings), Stevens Township, 

Bradford County, PA. Application for 

surface water withdrawal of up to 0.249 

mgd. 

16. Project Sponsor and Facility: 

Southwestern Energy Company (Sutton 

Big Pond), Herrick Township, Bradford 

County, PA. Application for surface 

water withdrawal of up to 5.000 mgd. 

17. Project Sponsor and Facility: 

Southwestern Energy Company 

(Tunkhannock Creek—Price), Gibson 

Township, Susquehanna County, PA. 

Application for surface water 

withdrawal of up to 0.380 mgd. 

18. Project Sponsor and Facility: 

Southwestern Energy Company 

(Wyalusing Creek—Ferguson), 

Wyalusing Township, Bradford County, 

PA. Application for surface water 

withdrawal of up to 1.500 mgd. 

19. Project Sponsor and Facility: 

Southwestern Energy Company 

(Wyalusing Creek—Campbell), Stevens 

Township, Bradford County, PA. 

Application for surface water 

withdrawal of up to 1.500 mgd. 

20. Project Sponsor: UGI Development 

Company. Project Facility: Hunlock 

Power Station, Hunlock Township, 

Luzerne County, PA. Application for 

surface water withdrawal from the 

Susquehanna River of up to 55.050 mgd. 

21. Project Sponsor: UGI Development 

Company. Project Facility: Hunlock 

Power Station, Hunlock Township, 

Luzerne County, PA. Application for 

consumptive water use of up to 0.870 

mgd. 

22. Project Sponsor and Facility: Ultra 

Resources, Inc. (Elk Run), Gaines 

Township, Tioga County, PA. Corrective 

modification to passby flow condition 

(Docket No. 20090631). 

23. Project Sponsor: United Water 

Resources. Project Facility: United 

Water PA–Harrisburg Operation, 

Newberry Township, York County, PA. 

Application for groundwater 

withdrawal of up to 0.172 mgd from 

Paddletown Well. 

Public Hearing—Projects Scheduled for 

Rescission Action 

1. Project Sponsor and Facility: 

Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC 

(Susquehanna River) (Docket No. 

20080903), Town of Tioga, Tioga 

County, N.Y. 

2. Project Sponsor and Facility: 

Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC 

(Susquehanna River) (Docket No. 

20080906), Athens Township, Bradford 

County, PA. 

3. Project Sponsor and Facility: 

Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC 

(Susquehanna River) (Docket No. 

20080907), Oakland Township, 

Susquehanna County, PA. 

4. Project Sponsor and Facility: East 

Resources, Inc. (Tioga River) (Docket 

No. 20080609), Mansfield, Richmond 

Township, Tioga County, PA. 

5. Project Sponsor and Facility: 

Montrose Country Club (Docket No. 

20020603), Bridgewater Township, 

Susquehanna County, PA. 

Public Hearing—Request for 

Administrative Hearing 

1. Petitioner Delta Borough, York 

County, Pennsylvania; RE: Delta 

Borough Public Water Supply Well No. 

DR–2; Docket No. 20090315, approved 

March 12, 2009. 

Opportunity to Appear and Comment 

Interested parties may appear at the 

above hearing to offer written or oral 

comments to the Commission on any 

matter on the hearing agenda, or at the 

business meeting to offer written or oral 

comments on other matters scheduled 

for consideration at the business 

meeting. The chair of the Commission 

reserves the right to limit oral 

statements in the interest of time and to 

otherwise control the course of the 

hearing and business meeting. Written 

comments may also be mailed to the 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 

1721 North Front Street, Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania 17102–2391, or submitted 

electronically to Richard A. Cairo, 

General Counsel, e-mail: rcairo@srbc.net 

or Stephanie L. Richardson, Secretary to 

the Commission, e-mail: 

srichardson@srbc.net. Comments mailed 

or electronically submitted must be 

received prior to September 4, 2009, to 

be considered. 

Authority: Public Law 91–575, 84 Stat. 

1509 et seq., 18 CFR parts 806, 807, and 808 

Dated: August 11, 2009. 

Thomas W. Beauduy, 

Deputy Director. 

[FR Doc. E9–20071 Filed 8–19–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7040–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0008] 

Beall Corporation; Grant of Application 

for a Temporary Exemption From 

FMVSS No. 224 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of petition for temporary 

exemption. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with 49 CFR 

part 555, this notice grants the Beall 

Corporation’s application for a 

temporary exemption from the 

requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (‘‘FMVSS’’) No. 224, 

‘‘Rear Impact Protection.’’ The 

exemption applies to the company’s 

dump body trailers. The basis for the 

grant is that compliance would cause 

substantial economic hardship to a 

manufacturer that has tried in good faith 

to comply with the standard. The 

exemption is effective for three years. 

DATES: The exemption from the 

applicable FMVSS is effective from 

August 20, 2009 through August 20, 

2012. 

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; E-mail ari.scott@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

a. Rear Impact Protection 

FMVSS No. 224, Rear Impact 

Protection, requires all trailers with a 

gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 

4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds) or 

more be fitted with a rear impact guard 

that conforms to FMVSS No. 223, ‘‘Rear 

impact guards.’’ This requirement, 

however, has presented problems for 

certain specialized vehicles, such as 

road construction vehicles, where 

interaction between the rear impact 

guard and the specialized paving or 

dumping equipment can cause 

engineering hurdles. 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, petitioned 

the agency for a temporary exemption 

from the rear impact protection 

requirements in FMVSS No. 224 (49 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 160 / Thursday, August 20, 2009 / Notices 42143 

1 In accordance with the requirements of 49 

U.S.C. 30113(b)(2), we published a notice of receipt 

of the application and asked for public comments. 

To view the application, notice, or response to the 

notice (no comments were received), please go to: 

http://www.regulations.gov (Docket No. NHTSA– 

2009–0008). 

CFR 571.224) based on economic 

hardship.1

b. Statutory Background of Petition for 

Economic Hardship 

The National Traffic and Motor 

Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act), 

codified as 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, 

provides the Secretary of Transportation 

authority to exempt, on a temporary 

basis and under specified 

circumstances, motor vehicles from a 

motor vehicle safety standard or bumper 

standard. This authority is set forth at 

49 U.S.C. 30113. The Secretary has 

delegated the authority for this section 

to NHTSA. 

NHTSA established Part 555, 

‘‘Temporary Exemption from Motor 

Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards,’’ 

to implement the statutory provisions 

concerning temporary exemptions. 

Vehicle manufacturers may apply for 

temporary exemptions on several bases, 

one of which is substantial economic 

hardship to a manufacturer that has 

tried to comply with the standard in 

good faith. A petitioner must provide 

specified information in submitting a 

petition for exemption. These 

requirements are specified in 49 CFR 

555.5 and 555.6, and include a number 

of items, including the reasons why the 

exemption would be in the public 

interest and consistent with the 

objectives of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. A 

manufacturer is eligible to apply for a 

hardship exemption if its total motor 

vehicle production in the year 

preceding the filing of its application 

did not exceed 10,000 vehicles (49 CFR 

555.6(a)(2)(v)). 

c. The Petition 

Beall manufactures trailers in 

Washington and Oregon. The company 

has been in existence for over a decade. 

Beall requested an exemption for a 

period of three years upon the grant of 

the petition. The following is a brief 

summary of the salient points of Beall’s 

petition. More complete information can 

be found by examining the notice of 

receipt or the petition itself, available in 

the NHTSA docket (NHTSA–2009– 

0008). 

In its petition, Beall stated 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 stated 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 

asserted 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 noted 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 provided specific financial 

information with its statement for the 

years 2004 through 2006. In 2004, it 

indicated 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 the petition were denied, 

Beall estimated 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 

stated that such a grant is necessary for 

the survival of the Power Truckweld 

division. 

The petitioner believed 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 stated 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 pointed 

to a number of technical challenges 

associated with designing a compliant 

rear impact protection system. Namely, 

it stated 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 argued 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 stated 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 claimed to have designed 

acceptable guards for a number of nonasphalt paving applications. 

Beall stated it has considered several 

alternative means of compliance. These 

include plastically deforming devices 

and hinged and retractable devices. 

However, the petitioner believed 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 stated 

that asphalt paving surface has the effect 

of rendering these sorts of devices 

unusable over time. Finally, Beall noted 

that trailers could be operated with 

these devices in the retracted position, 

resulting in no safety benefits. 

Beall stated 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 stated that it will continue to 

work with others in the paving industry 

to develop an acceptable solution. 

Beall’s believed 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 

noted 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. 

d. Notice of Receipt 

On February 12, 2009 (74 FR 7102), 

we published a notice announcing 

receipt of an application from Beall for 

a temporary exemption from the 

requirements of FMVSS No. 224 for its 

dump body trailer designs. We invited 

public comment on Beall’s application, 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
42144 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 160 / Thursday, August 20, 2009 / Notices 

but received no comment in response to 

the publication. 

e. Final Decision 

We are granting Beall’s petiton for 

exemption. The manufacturer satisfies 

the criterion that its total motor vehicle 

production in its most recent year of 

production does not exceed 10,000. In 

its petition, Beall noted that it produced 

79 vehicles in the 12 months period 

prior to requesting the exemption, of 

which 64 were dump body type trailers 

that would be covered by the requested 

temporary exemption. Based on this, we 

conclude that Beall is eligible for the 

requested exemption. 

The agency may grant such a petition 

if it finds that the petitioner would 

suffer financial hardship if an 

exemption were not granted, that the 

petitioner has tried in good faith to 

comply with the standard, and that an 

exemption would be in the public 

interest and consistent with the 

purposes of the Vehicle Safety Act. 

The fundamental problem which is 

causing Beall to be unable to fully 

comply with the rear impact 

requirements relates to the design and 

function of the vehicle. As stated in the 

petition for exemption, the bodies at 

issue are raised as to discharge out of 

the rear. Therefore, they require the area 

to the rear of the vehicle, where the rear 

impact protection material would 

ordinarily be located, to be clear enough 

for the discharge to proceed smoothly. 

Despite significant expenditures of 

capital and labor in pursuit of 

compliance, Beall was unable to bring 

its vehicle into compliance. While 

engineering research and possible 

alternative solutions are being 

considered, the company currently 

requires a temporary exemption in order 

to sell its vehicles in their current state. 

Beall has shown the necessary aspects 

to receive a temporary exemption on the 

basis of financial hardship. These 

include demonstrated financial 

hardship, good faith efforts to comply 

with the standard, and a showing that 

receiving the exemption would be in the 

public interest. We discuss these below. 

First, Beall’s financial statements 

show substantial financial hardship. As 

stated above, Beall estimates that it 

could lose substantial money if it is 

unable to sell its dump body trailers. 

Furthermore, given the economic 

downturn in recent months, we believe 

that it is likely that Beall’s economic 

condition has deteriorated further since 

it originally submitted its petition. 

Second, the petitioner has shown a 

good faith effort to comply with the 

standard. Again, as stated above, the 

petitioner has undertaken substantial 

research and design efforts in order to 

try and comply with the standard. It has 

worked on designing internal solutions, 

partnered with the Mechanical 

Engineering department at Montana 

State University, and tried to find thirdparty suppliers that could design 

equipment that could overcome the 

formidable design challenges. It has also 

searched for alternative means of 

compliance, such as plastically 

deforming devices and mounting the 

box higher on the vehicle. Finally, it 

continues to work on design changes 

that could allow it to comply with the 

full FMVSSs. 

Third, we believe that the public 

interest is served by granting this 

exemption. There is a problem in 

practicability in complying with the 

requirements of the standard. This is a 

trailer that requires a controlled release 

of the materials from the dump body, 

which complicates the ability to install 

a rear impact protection system that 

does not interfere with the trailer’s 

operation. Additionally, these trailers 

are used primarily in road construction 

applications, thereby removing them 

generally from the flow of traffic 

(although they may still be used in some 

in-traffic situations, such as transport to 

and from road construction sites). 

Coupled with the very low number of 

vehicles expected to be produced during 

the temporary exemption, the negative 

safety impact of the exemption will be 

insignificant. In contrast, permitting this 

type of vehicle to be sold to the public 

serves the public interest. 

Public Interest Considerations. Dump 

body trailers are used primarily for 

road-paving and other construction 

tasks, and frequently discharge road 

material via the rear of the vehicle. In 

considering whether granting a petition 

is in the public interest, NHTSA also 

considers the impact of not granting the 

exemption on consumer choice and the 

economy, as well as the relative impact 

of the exemption on safety. Beall states 

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. Given 

the relatively few companies that 

produce these sort of specialized 

trailers, we believe that the exemption 

would have benefits with regard to 

enhancing consumer choice and 

facilitating construction projects. Also, 

we note again 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. 

In consideration of the foregoing, we 

conclude that compliance with the 

requirements of FMVSS No. 224, Rear 

Impact Protection, would cause 

substantial economic hardship to a 

manufacturer that has tried in good faith 

to comply with the standard. We further 

conclude that granting of an exemption 

would be in the public interest and 

consistent with the objectives of traffic 

safety. 

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 

30113(b)(3)(B)(i), Beall Corporation is 

granted NHTSA Temporary Exemption 

No. EX 09–03, from FMVSS No. 224. 

The exemption covers only dump body 

trailers manufactured by the company. 

The exemption shall remain for three 

years as indicated in the DATES section 

of this notice. 

(49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50. and 501.8) 

Issued on: August 14, 2009. 

Ronald L. Medford, 

Acting Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E9–19956 Filed 8–19–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions 

on Proposed Highway in Ohio 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of Limitation on Claims 

for Judicial Review of Actions by FHWA 

and Other Federal Agencies. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces actions 

taken by the FHWA and other Federal 

agencies that are final within the 

meaning of 23 U.S.C. § 139(l)(1). The 

actions relate to a proposed highway 

project, the Interstate Routes 70 and 71 

and interchanges, in the City of 

Columbus, Franklin County, State of 

Ohio (FRA–70–8.93, Project 

Identification Number 77369). Those 

actions grant licenses, permits, and 

approvals for the project. 

DATES: By this notice, the FHWA is 

advising the public of final agency 

actions subject to 23 U.S.C. § 139(l)(1). 

A claim seeking judicial review of the 

Federal agency actions on the highway 

project will be barred unless the claim 

is filed on or before February 16, 2010. 

If the Federal law that authorizes 

judicial review of a claim provides a 

time period of less than 180 days for 

filing such claim, then that shorter time 

period still applies. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES