Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2001 / Notices 22069

• Irvine on May 23—Irvine Civic

Center, Conference and Training Center,

One Civic Center Plaza, Irvine 92623,

from 3:00–5 p.m. and from 6:00–8 p.m.

Persons interested in providing

comments on the scope of the

programmatic EIR/EIS should do so by

May 31, 2001. Comments can be sent in

writing to Mr. David Valenstein at the

FRA address identified above.

Comments may also be addressed to Mr.

John Barna of the Authority at their

address identified above. Information

and documents regarding the

environmental review process will also

be made available through the

Authority’s Internet site: [http://

www.cahighspeedrail.gov/].

Signed on Thursday, April 19, 2001.

Mark E. Yachmetz,

Associate Administrator for Railroad

Development.

[FR Doc. 01–10903 Filed 5–1–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–98–3848; Notice 4]

Beall Trailers of Washington, Inc.;

Grant of Petition for Renewal of

Temporary Exemption From Federal

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224

This notice grants the petition by

Beall Trailers of Washington, Inc., of

Kent, Washington (‘‘Beall’’), a whollyowned subsidiary of Beall Corporation,

for a renewal of the temporary

exemption we granted it in July 1998

from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard No. 224 Rear Impact

Protection. The basis of the petition is

that compliance would cause

substantial economic hardship to a

manufacturer that has tried in good faith

to comply with the standard.

Notice of receipt of the petition was

published on January 20, 2000, and an

opportunity afforded for comment (65

FR 3267).

On July 8, 1998, we granted Beall’s

initial exemption petition, assigning it

NHTSA Temporary Exemption No. 98–

5, expiring July 1, 1999 (63 FR 36989).

On April 20, 1999, we received Beall’s

application for renewal , which was

filed in time to stay the expiration date

of the exemption, as provided by 49

CFR 555.8(e). Following our request,

Beall provided more current financial

and production information on October

28, 1999 to supplement its new petition.

Beall manufactures and sells dump

body trailers. It (identified in the

petition as ‘‘Truckweld’’) produced a

total of 311 trailers in 1997, of which

124 were dump body types. Truckweld

trailer production in 1998 was down to

135 units but the number of dump body

types was not stated.

Standard No. 224 requires, effective

January 26, 1998, that all trailers with a

GVWR of 4536 Kg or more, including

dump body types, be fitted with a rear

impact guard that conforms to Standard

No. 223 Rear impact guards. Beall

argued earlier that ‘‘alterations may

have to be made to the trailer chassis or

even raising the dump box to provide

space for the retractable guard,’’

indicating that a guard that retracts

when the dump body is in operation is

the solution it is seeking in order to

comply. During the time that its

exemption has been in effect, Beall

‘‘has, in good faith, made attempts to

design a compliant device.’’ It states that

it has developed ‘‘a number of potential

designs’’ including an articulating

design, but ‘‘these devices * * * do not

meet FMVSS 224, have interferences

with paving equipment, or have severe

maintenance issues.’’ The company is

still testing hinged, retractable devices

but three issues must be overcome.

First, space for a retracted device is not

readily available ‘‘due to the clearance

issues in connecting to pavers.’’ Raising

the box also raises the center of gravity

and reduces the stability of the trailers

‘‘thereby endangering others.’’ Second,

‘‘asphalt service will, over a period of

time, render such devices unusable.’’

Finally, ‘‘it would be possible to operate

a trailer with these type (sic) of devices

in the retracted position, therefore not

in compliance.’’ It will continue its

efforts to conform during the three-year

exemption period it has requested.

If a renewal of the exemption is not

granted, substantial economic hardship

will result. First, it would lose a trailer

that accounts for 40 percent of its

overall production. In addition, ‘‘some

percentage of the remaining 60% would

be lost since our customers typically

purchase matching truck mounted

dump bodies which may also be lost.’’

It also believes that 31 of its 63

employees would have to be laid off if

its application is denied. It argues that

maintenance of full employment would

be in the public interest . Beall’s net

income was $39,317 in fiscal year 1995,

$72,213 in 1996, $697,040 before

income taxes in 1997, and $326,255 in

1998.

One comment was received on the

petition, from Pioneer Truck Equipment

of Salem, Oregon, which opposed it.

Pioneer, a manufacturer of ‘‘multi axle

dump body trailers,’’ argues that Beall’s

exemption has given it a competitive

advantage. It believes that Beall’s

petition should be denied, or,

alternatively, that there be ‘‘a blanket

exemption for all affected

manufacturers.’’ In considering whether

to grant a temporary exemption,

however, the test we must apply is

whether denying an exemption would

cause substantial economic hardship to

a manufacturer that has tried in good

faith to comply.

Beall is a small volume manufacturer

by any standard, producing only 135

units in the year preceding the filing of

its application for renewal. Its net

income at that point was $326,255. We

note that this figure reflects Beall’s

financial situation during the first year

that Standard No. 224 and its exemption

was in effect. This new income was

substantially lower than the previous

year, before Standard No. 224’s effective

date, when it was $697,040 (which,

however, was more than six times the

combined net income for the two years

prior to that). While the company is not

showing net losses, its average net

income over the four-year period 1995–

98 is roughly $284,000. If we assume

that Beall’s net income is reduced 50%

if an exemption is not granted, the

possible result is a net income of only

$142,000. In the meantime, it must

continue to expend resources in

searching for means to conform to

Standard No. 224 within the strictures

of reduced income. The company

assures us that it has been testing

hinged, retractable devices, but reports

that it continues to experience

difficulty. An exemption will be in the

public interest because it will allow it

to retain full employment. The effect

upon safety will be minimal due to the

low volume of production.

In consideration of the foregoing, we

hereby find that the petitioner has met

its burden of persuasion that

compliance would cause substantial

economic hardship to a manufacturer

that has tried to meet the standard in

good faith, and that a temporary

exemption would be in the public

interest and consistent with the

objectives of motor vehicle safety. Given

the facts that more than two years have

passed between our receipt of Beall’s

petition and our decision to grant it, and

that Beall has continued to manufacture

its trailers as allowed by the tolled

expiration date, we are providing an

exemption until August 1, 2001, which,

is in effect, slightly more than a twoyear exemption. In view of the comment

from Pioneer, we are not providing the

three-year exemption Beall requested. If

Beall has still not achieved compliance,

this exemption period should be

sufficient to allow the company to file

22070 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2001 / Notices

a further exemption request in time to

toll the new expiration date, and to

provide us with updated compliance

and financial information. Accordingly,

NHTSA Temporary Exemption No. 98–

5 from 49 CFR 571.224 Standard No.

224, Rear Impact Protection is hereby

extended to, and will expire on, August

1, 2001.

L. Robert Shelton,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 01–10971 Filed 5–1–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Submission for OMB review; comment

request

April 25, 2001.

The Department of Treasury has

submitted the following public

information collection requirement(s) to

OMB for review and clearance under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13. Copies of the

submission(s) may be obtained by

calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance

Officer listed. Comments regarding this

information collection should be

addressed to the OMB reviewer listed

and to the Treasury Department

Clearance Officer, Department of the

Treasury, Room 2110, 1425 New York

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

DATES: Written comments should be

received on or before June 1, 2001 to be

assured of consideration.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

OMB Number: 1545–0927.

Form Number: IRS Form 8390.

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Information Return for

Determination of Life Insurance

Company Earnings Rate Under Section

809.

Description: Life insurance companies

are required to provide data so the

Secretary of the Treasury can compute

the: (1) Stock earnings rate of the 50

largest stock companies; and (2) average

mutual earnings rate. These factors are

used to compute the differential

earnings rate which will determine the

tax liability for mutual life insurance

companies.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit.

Estimated Number of Respondents/

Recordkeepers: 150.

ESTIMATED BURDEN HOURS PER

RESPONDENT/RECORDKEEPER

Recordkeeping .......... 55 hr., 57 min.

ESTIMATED BURDEN HOURS PER RESPONDENT/RECORDKEEPER—Continued

Learning about the

law or the form.

2 hr., 34 min.

Preparing and sending the form to the

IRS.

3 hr., 36 min.

Frequency of Response: Annually.

Estimated Total Reporting/

Recordkeeping Burden: 9,323 hours.

Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear,

Internal Revenue Service, Room 5244,

1111 Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20224.

OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt

(202) 395–7860, Office of Management

and Budget, Room 10202, New

Executive Office Building, Washington,

DC 20503.

Mary A. Able,

Departmental Reports, Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 01–10885 Filed 5–1–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

April 26, 2001.

The Department of Treasury has

submitted the following public

information collection requirement(s) to

OMB for review and clearance under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13. Copies of the

submission(s) may be obtained by

calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance

Officer listed. Comments regarding this

information collection should be

addressed to the OMB reviewer listed

and to the Treasury Department

Clearance Officer, Department of the

Treasury, Room 2110, 1425 New York

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

DATES: Written comments should be

received on or before June 1, 2001 to be

assured of consideration.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms (BATF)

OMB Number: 1512–0092.

Form Number: ATF F 5100.31.

Type of Review: Extension.

Description: The Federal Alcohol

Administration Act regulates the

labeling of alcoholic beverages and

designates the Treasury Department to

oversee compliance with regulations.

This form is completed by the regulated

industry and submitted to Treasury as

an application to label their products.

Treasury oversees label applications to

prevent consumer deception and to

deter falsification of unfair advertising

practices on alcoholic beverages.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit.

Estimated Number of Recordkeepers:

8,624.

Estimated Burden Hours Per

Recordkeeper: 30 minutes.

Frequency of Response Other (3

years).

Estimated Total Recordkeeping

Burden: 28,565.

OMB Number: 1512–0115.

Form Number: ATF F 2140 (5220.4).

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Monthly Report—Export

Warehouse Proprietor.

Description: Proprietors who are

qualified to operate export warehouses

that handled untaxpaid tobacco

products are required to file a monthly

report. This report summarizes all

transactions by the proprietor handling

receipts, dispositions and on-hand

quantities. The form is used for product

accountability and is examined by

regional office personnel.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

221.

Estimated Burden Hours Per

Respondent: 48 minutes.

Frequency of Response: Monthly.

Estimated Total Reporting Burden:

2,148 hours.

OMB Number: 1512–0184.

Form Number: ATF F 5400.4.

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Explosives Transaction Record.

Description: This form is used to

verify the qualification and

identification of unlicensed persons

wishing to purchase explosive materials

from licensed dealers, as well as the

location in which the explosives are

intended for storage and/or use. ATF

used the information in its

investigations and inspections to

establish leads and determine

compliance.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit, Individuals or households.

Estimated Number of Respondents/

Recordkeepers: 1,140.

Estimated Burden Hours Per

Respondent/Recordkeeper: 20 minutes.

Frequency of Response: Other

(whenever sales are made).

Estimated Total Reporting/

Recordkeeping Burden: 7,227 hours.

OMB Number: 1512–0188.

Form Number: ATF F 5100.1.

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Signing Authority for Corporate

Officials.

Description: ATF F 5100.1 is

substituted instead of a regulatory