45492 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 14, 2007 / Notices 

manufacturers, including Reliance, have 

previously received exemptions from FMVSS 

No. 224.* * * 

The agency notes that gravity feed dump 

trailers are more common and represent a 

larger vehicle population compared to RCC 

horizontal discharge trailers. Accordingly, we 

are concerned that exempting a larger vehicle 

population from the requirements of the 

standard may lead to negative safety 

consequences exceeding those associated 

with exempting only the RCC horizontal 

discharge trailers. Because of a larger vehicle 

population and because of their versatility of 

use, the agency cannot conclude that a risk 

of an underride collision with a gravity feed 

dump trailer is negligible. Finally, we note 

that Reliance’s request is outside the scope of 

the NPRM, and this rulemaking action cannot 

exempt other types of vehicles from the 

requirements of FMVSS No. 224 without 

further notice. 

(See 69 FR at 67666.)(Emphasis added.) 

Thus, in the November 2004 final 

rule, we declined to provide a blanket 

exemption from FMVSS No. 224 for 

gravity feed dump trailers. 

IV. Reliance’s Current Application for a 

Temporary Exemption From FMVSS 

No. 224 

The application, dated June 15, 2006, 

addressed in today’s document is the 

third from Reliance requesting a 

temporary exemption from FMVSS No. 

224. Pursuant to 49 CFR Part 555, 

Temporary Exemption from Motor 

Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards, 

Reliance presents the following 

arguments in favor of its application. 

A. Reliance’s Statement of Economic 

Hardship 

Reliance stated that during the past 

year, the ‘‘Pony Trailers’’ have 

accounted for 55 percent of its 

manufacturing profits. Reliance stated 

that if it must comply with FMVSS No. 

224, the ‘‘Pony Trailers’’ would be 

‘‘rendered inefficient’’ for the paving 

industry, the primary end user of the 

product, and Reliance would have no 

alternative than to discontinue 

production of the Sturdyweld product 

line. If Reliance discontinues 

production of the Sturdyweld product 

line, it will be forced to reduce its 

workforce, commensurate with the 

decline in overall sales and profits. This 

would cause approximately thirty 

employees to lose their jobs. With the 

discontinuation of the Sturdywell 

product line, and subsequent loss of 

profit, Reliance would fall well below 

profitability, and may ultimately be 

forced to cease operations. 

B. Reliance’s Statement of Good Faith 

Efforts To Comply 

Reliance states that asphalt lay-down 

equipment has a hopper, into which the 

‘‘Pony Trailer’’ dumps hot mix. Reliance 

states that the ‘‘Pony Trailer’’ is a 

gravity feed dump trailer that dumps 

material into a hopper positioned 

directly behind the rear axle. Reliance 

states that this requires that the ‘‘Pony 

Trailer’s’’ rear axle be set so the back 

edge of the rear tire is 18 inches to 24 

inches ahead of the rear most point of 

the trailer, and that anything behind the 

rear axle would interfere with the 

operation of the lay-down equipment. 

Reliance states that the area behind 

the rear axle is where the underride 

bumper would be, and provides an 

illustration. Reliance states that any 

underride bumper would either have to 

be moved out of the way, or removed 

during the paving operation. Reliance 

stated that it is unaware of any 

manufacturer of similar trailers that has 

been able to design economically or 

purchase a movable bumper that meets 

FMVSS No. 224 requirements. 

Reliance states that the 18 to 24 

inches behind the rear tires required for 

paving is only slightly more than the 12 

inches required to meet the axle back 

requirement. Reliance considers this to 

be a much safer position than the 

typical over the road freight hauling 

trailer, where the distance from the back 

of the tire to the end of the trailer can 

reach upwards of 110 inches if no rear 

impact guard were in place. 

Reliance states that it has continued 

to explore any options that the company 

believes would permit compliance with 

FMVSS No. 224 and allow operation of 

the ‘‘Pony Trailers’’ in conjunction with 

paving equipment. Reliance states that it 

has exhausted ‘‘all known possibilities.’’

Reliance stated that it will continue to 

work with its customers to look for a 

‘‘viable solution’’ to this issue. 

C. Reliance’s Statement of Public 

Interest 

Reliance states that it anticipates 

building fewer than 100 units of the 

‘‘Pony Trailer’’ per year, and concludes 

that the quantity of ‘‘Pony Trailers’’

produced is very small in comparison to 

over the road type units. Reliance states 

that the typical hauls for ‘‘Pony 

Trailers’’ are short with a minimal 

amount of time spent traveling on 

highways, compared with most freight 

trailers. Reliance states that asphalt 

batch plants are typically set up close to 

the paving site, so that the asphalt can 

remain hot enough to flow from the 

trailer into the paver and spread 

effectively. Reliance states that the 

vehicles spend very little time traveling 

on busy roads to the job location. 

Reliance states that special access is 

often provided to the job site, reducing 

exposure to other vehicles, and that ‘‘at 

this time’’ it is unaware of any collisions 

or subsequent injuries related to the 

‘‘Pony Trailer.’’

Reliance states that it is in the public 

interest to grant the temporary 

exemption so that it can continue as a 

profitable company, can allow Reliance 

to retain and expand its current 

workforce, thus stimulating the 

economy, and so that Reliance can 

continue to ‘‘produce a quality product’’

to serve the paving industry, and the 

needs of the American people by 

continuing safe and effective operation 

of paving equipment, to produce, new, 

as well as maintain existing roads for 

transportation needs. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of 

authority at 49 CFR 1.50. and 501.8. 

Issued on: August 8, 2007. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. E7–15836 Filed 8–13–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration Office of 

Hazardous Materials Safety; Notice of 

Delays in Processing Special Permits 

Applications 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), DOT. 

ACTION: List of applications delayed 

more than 180 days. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

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

PHMSA is publishing the following list 

of special permit applications that have 

been in process for 180 days or more. 

The reason(s) for delay and the expected 

completion date for action on each 

application is provided in association 

with each identified application. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Delmer F. Billings, Director, Office of 

Hazardous Materials Special Permits 

and Approvals, Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, East 

Building, PHH–30, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590–

0001, (202) 366–4535. 

Key to ‘‘Reason for Delay’’

1. Awaiting additional information 

from applicant. 

2. Extensive public comment under 

review. 

3. Application is technically complex 

and is of significant impact or 

precedent-setting and requires extensive 

analysis. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 14, 2007 / Notices 45493 

4. Staff review delayed by other 

priority issues or volume of special 

permit applications. 

Meaning of Application Number 

Suffixes 

N—New application. 

M—Modification request. 

PM—Party to application with 

modification request. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 8, 

2007. 

Delmer F. Billings, 

Director, Office of Hazardous Materials, 

Special Permits and Approvals. 

MODIFICATION TO SPECIAL PERMITS

Application number Applicant Reason for 

delay 

Estimated date 

of completion 

10481–M ................ M–1 Engineering Limited, Bradfrod, West Yorkshire ............................................................. 4 09–30–2007 

14167–M ................ Trinityrail, Dallas, TX ............................................................................................................... 1,3,4 09–30–2007 

8915–M .................. Matheson Tri Gas, East Rutherford, NJ ................................................................................. 4 08–31–2007 

NEW SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATIONS

Application number Applicant Reason for 

delay 

Estimated date 

of completion 

14385–N ................. Kansas City Southern Railway Company, Kansas City, MO ................................................. 4 09–30–2007 

14442–N ................. Trinityrail, Dallas, TX ............................................................................................................... 4 09–30–2007 

14482–N ................. Classic Helicopters, Woods Cross, UT .................................................................................. 1 08–31–2007 

14483–N ................. WEW Westerwaelder Eisenwerk, Weitefeld Germany ........................................................... 4 10–31–2007 

14470–N ................. Marsulex, Inc., Springfield, OR ............................................................................................... 4 08–31–2007 

14457–N ................. Amtrol Alfa Metalomecanica SA, Portugal ............................................................................. 4 09–30–2007 

14436–N ................. BNSF Railway Company, Topeka, KS ................................................................................... 4 09–30–2007 

14402–N ................. Lincoln Composites, Lincoln, NE ............................................................................................ 1 12–31–2007 

[FR Doc. 07–3974 Filed 8–13–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–60–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Ex Parte No. 664] 

Methodology To Be Employed in 

Determining the Railroad Industry’s 

Cost of Capital 

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, 

DOT. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Board proposes to revise 

its method for calculating the railroad 

industry’s cost of capital by computing 

the cost of equity using a capital asset 

pricing model. 

DATES: Comments on this proposal are 

due by September 13, 2007. Reply 

comments are due by October 15, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted either via that Board’s e-filing 

format or in the traditional paper 

format. Any person using e-filing should 

attach a document and otherwise 

comply with the instructions at the E–

FILING link on the Board’s Web site, at 

http://www.stb.dot.gov. Any person 

submitting a filing in the traditional 

paper format should send an original 

and 10 copies to: Surface Transportation 

Board, Attn: STB Ex Parte No. 664, 395 

E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423–

0001. 

Copies of written comments will be 

available from the Board’s contractor, 

ASAP Document Solutions (mailing 

address: Suite 103, 9332 Annapolis Rd., 

Lanham, MD 20706; e-mail address: 

asapdc@verizon.net; telephone number: 

202–306–4004). The comments will also 

be available for viewing and selfcopying at the Board’s Public Docket 

Room, Room 131, and will be posted to 

the Board’s Web site. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

A. Aguiar at (202) 245–0323. [Assistance 

for the hearing impaired is available 

through the Federal Information Relay 

Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339.] 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Surface Transportation Board (the 

Board) has issued a notice seeking 

public comments on the following 

proposed change to the methodology to 

calculate the railroad industry’s cost of 

capital. To calculate the cost of equity 

component of the cost of capital, we 

propose to replace the Discounted Cash 

Flow method currently used with a 

Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM). 

To calculate the cost of equity, we 

propose to use the following simple 

single-Beta version of the CAPM model: 

Cost of equity = RF + b*RP. In this 

equation, RF is the annual economywide risk-free rate, RP is the annual 

market-wide risk premium, and b (or 

Beta) is the measure of systematic, nondiversifiable risk of a particular carrier. 

The industry-wide cost of capital will be 

determined as a weighted average of 

individual railroad costs, using the same 

methodology as is used now. 

To calculate the annual risk-free rate, 

we propose to use the 10-year Treasury 

Bond rate. The FRB uses a short-term 

Treasury Bill rate and the CTA uses 

both short-term and long-term rates. We 

believe a longer rate is superior and the 

10-year is the longest Treasury Bond 

that has been continuously issued. A 

comprehensive study found that 70% of 

corporate and financial advisors use 

Treasury bond yields of maturities of 10 

years or greater. See Bruner, Eades, 

Harris, and Higgins, Best Practices in 

Estimating the Cost of Capital: Survey 

and Synthesis, Fin. Practice & Educ. at 

13–29 (Spring/Summer 1998) (Best 

Practices). Moreover, the risk-free rate 

used by investors should be risk free 

over the time period of the investment, 

and railroad assets are often long-lived. 

Finally, an advantage of using long-term 

rates is that they contain long-term 

inflation expectations. Using a 10-year 

risk-free rate therefore makes the 

proposed CAPM calculation more 

forward looking. 

To calculate the annual market-wide 

risk premium, we propose to use 

monthly New York Stock Exchange 

(NYSE) data over a 50-year time period. 

Because this calculation is essentially 

an average return, a longer time period 

is usually chosen. We invite comments 

on the appropriate time period. While 

we propose to calculate the market risk 

premium each year, we also seek 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES