48878 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2017 / Notices 

1CKIN states that it was selected by the Town to 

operate the Line pursuant to an Operating 

Agreement executed on July 31, 2004, and expiring 

on December 31, 2015. Subsequently, the parties 

extended the operating agreement, first until May 

15, 2016, and later until August 15, 2016. During 

these extensions, CKIN initiated litigation in state 

court and brought a petition before the Board that 

was later denied. See CSX Transp., Inc.—Aban. 

Exemption—in LaPorte, Porter, & Starke Ctys., Ind., 

AB 55 (Sub-No. 643X) et al. (STB served May 31, 

2017). Ultimately, the parties reached a mutually 

satisfactory settlement. See CSX Transp., Inc.— 

Aban. Exemption—in LaPorte, Porter, & Starke 

Ctys., Ind., AB 55 (Sub-No. 643X) et al. (STB served 

Oct. 2, 2017). 

2CKIN states that the parties’ operating agreement 

is automatically renewable at CKIN’s option for two 

additional five-year terms, for a total occupancy of 

20 years. 

(b) This memorandum does not affect 

either Executive Order 12807 of May 24, 

1992, Interdiction of Illegal Aliens, or 

Executive Order 13276 of November 15, 

2002, Delegation of Responsibilities 

Concerning Undocumented Aliens 

Interdicted or Intercepted in the 

Caribbean Region. 

Sec. 5. General Provisions. 

(a) Nothing in this memorandum shall 

be construed to impair or otherwise 

affect: 

(i) the authority granted by law to an 

executive department or agency, or the 

head thereof; or 

(ii) the functions of the Director of the 

Office of Management and Budget 

relating to budgetary, administrative, or 

legislative proposals. 

(b) This memorandum shall be 

implemented consistent with applicable 

laws and subject to the availability of 

appropriations. 

(c) This memorandum is not intended 

to, and does not, create any right or 

benefit, substantive or procedural, 

enforceable at law or in equity by any 

party against the United States, its 

departments, agencies, or entities, its 

officers, employees, or agents, or any 

other person. 

(d) The Secretary of State is hereby 

authorized and directed to publish this 

memorandum in the Federal Register. 

Donald J. Trump 

[FR Doc. 2017–22928 Filed 10–19–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–10–P 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD 

[Docket No. FD 36147] 

Chesapeake and Indiana Railroad 

Company—Amended Operation 

Exemption—Town of North Judson, 

Ind. 

Chesapeake and Indiana Railroad 

Company (CKIN), a Class III rail carrier, 

has filed a verified notice of exemption 

under 49 CFR 1150.41 to continue to 

operate an approximately 27.92-mile 

line of railroad owned by the Town of 

North Judson, Ind. (Town). The rail line 

extends between milepost CF 0.23, at 

Lacrosse, and milepost CF 15.23, at 

Wellsboro, and between milepost CI 

218.0, at English Lake, and milepost CI 

230.92, at Malden, in LaPorte, Porter, 

and Starke Counties, Ind. (the Line). 

According to CKIN, the Board 

originally authorized CKIN’s operation 

of the Line in 2004. See Chesapeake & 

Ind. R.R.—Operation Exemption—Town 

of N. Judson, Ind., FD 34529 (STB 

served Aug. 20, 2004).1 On September 

11, 2017, CKIN and the Town entered 

into a new 10-year agreement for CKIN 

to continue to operate over the Line.2

CKIN states that the amended operating 

agreement will take effect on the 

effective date of this notice of 

exemption. 

CKIN certifies that its projected 

annual revenues as a result of this 

transaction will not result in the 

creation of a Class I or Class II rail 

carrier and will not exceed $5 million. 

CKIN also states that there are no 

provisions or agreements limiting 

interchange with other carriers. 

The transaction may be consummated 

on or after November 4, 2017, the 

effective date of the exemption (30 days 

after the verified notice of exemption 

was filed). 

If the verified notice contains false or 

misleading information, the exemption 

is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the 

exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) 

may be filed at any time. The filing of 

a petition to revoke will not 

automatically stay the effectiveness of 

the exemption. Petitions for stay must 

be filed no later than October 27, 2017 

(at least seven days before the 

exemption becomes effective). 

An original and 10 copies of all 

pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 

36147, must be filed with the Surface 

Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20423–0001. In 

addition, a copy of each pleading must 

be served on applicant’s representative, 

John D. Heffner, Strasburger & Price, 

LLP, 1025 Connecticut Avenue NW., 

Suite 717, Washington, DC 20036. 

According to CKIN, this action is 

categorically excluded from 

environmental review under 49 CFR 

1105.6(c). 

Board decisions and notices are 

available on our Web site at 

WWW.STB.GOV. 

Decided: October 17, 2017. 

By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting 

Director, Office of Proceedings. 

Marline Simeon, 

Clearance Clerk. 

[FR Doc. 2017–22817 Filed 10–19–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2017–0007] 

Fixing America’s Surface 

Transportation (FAST) Act; Solicitation 

for Candidate Projects in the Interstate 

System Reconstruction and 

Rehabilitation Pilot Program (ISRRPP) 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice; solicitation for 

applications. 

SUMMARY: The FHWA invites State 

transportation departments to submit 

applications for candidate projects in 

the Interstate System Reconstruction 

and Rehabilitation Pilot Program 

(ISRRPP), authorized in the 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 

Century and amended by the Fixing 

America’s Surface Transportation 

(FAST) Act. Under the ISRRPP, FHWA 

may permit up to three States to collect 

tolls on a facility on the Interstate 

System for the purpose of reconstructing 

or rehabilitating Interstate highway 

corridors that could not otherwise be 

adequately maintained or functionally 

improved without the collection of tolls. 

This notice describes general program 

provisions, eligibility and selection 

criteria, and the application submission 

and evaluation process. 

DATES: Applications are due to FHWA 

Division Offices by February 20, 2018. 

The FHWA will review these 

submissions and award up to three 

provisional approvals to States that will 

be expected to fully satisfy the ISRRPP 

criteria within 3 years. Should FHWA 

award fewer than three provisional 

approvals, it will re-solicit for 

applications at a future date. 

The FHWA will conduct an 

information session regarding the 

ISRRPP in the form of a Webinar on 

November 13, 2017 at 2:00 p.m., e.t. For 

more information, please visit: https://

www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/revenue/road_

pricing/tolling_pricing/interstate_

rr.aspx. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about the pilot program: Ms. 

Cynthia Essenmacher, Center for 

Innovative Finance Support, Office of 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2017 / Notices 48879 

Innovative Program Delivery, Federal 

Highway Administration, 315 West 

Allegan Street, Room 201, Lansing, MI 

48933, (517) 702–1856. For legal 

questions: Mr. Steven Rochlis, Office of 

the Chief Counsel, Federal Highway 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

(202) 366–1395. Office hours are from 

8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. E.T., Monday 

through Friday, except for Federal 

holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

A. Program Description 

B. Program Slots 

C. Eligibility Information 

D. Submission Information 

E. Review Information 

F. Requirements for Provisionally Approved 

Projects 

A. Program Description 

1. Tolling Authority Under the Interstate 

System Reconstruction and 

Rehabilitation Pilot Program (ISRRPP) 

The FAST Act section 1411(c) amends 

the ISRRPP authorized under section 

1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act 

for the 21st Century (TEA–21). The 

ISRRPP allows a State to collect tolls on 

a facility on the Interstate System in 

order to reconstruct or rehabilitate an 

Interstate highway corridor that could 

not otherwise be adequately maintained 

or functionally improved without the 

collection of tolls. Up to three facilities 

may participate in the ISRRPP, and each 

must be geographically located in a 

different State. 

Since the ISRRPP’s establishment in 

1998, several States have requested and 

received what FHWA has termed 

‘‘provisional approval’’ of pilot projects, 

also referred to as the reservation of a 

‘‘program slot.’’ The purpose of this step 

has been to enable States to invest the 

considerable resources needed to fully 

satisfy the program criteria, which are 

described below, without fear of being 

superseded by a subsequent applicant. 

To date, however, no State has fully 

satisfied the ISRRPP program criteria. 

2. Other Interstate Tolling Authority 

The ISRRPP is not the only authority 

available to States to toll facilities on the 

Interstate System. Today, the 46,730- 

mile Interstate System includes 

approximately 2,900 miles of toll roads, 

most built as turnpikes and 

incorporated into the system in 1957. 

Current Federal law provides several 

options for States to toll Interstate 

facilities. The authorities in 23 United 

States Code (U.S.C.) 129(a)(1) now allow 

for the initial construction of an 

Interstate toll facility; the conversion of 

an Interstate high occupancy vehicle 

(HOV) lane to a toll facility; the 

expansion of an Interstate highway and 

tolling of the new capacity as long as the 

current number of toll-free non-HOV 

lanes is maintained; and the 

reconstruction or replacement of a tollfree Interstate System bridge or tunnel 

and its conversion to a toll facility. 

Additional authorities are provided 

under 23 U.S.C. 166(c), which allows 

public agencies to permit toll-paying 

vehicles that do not meet minimum 

occupancy standards to use highoccupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. Such 

lanes are commonly referred to as high 

occupancy toll (HOT) lanes. Finally, the 

Value Pricing Pilot Program (VPPP), 

initially authorized in the Intermodal 

Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 

1991 (ISTEA, Pub. L. 102–240) as the 

Congestion Pricing Pilot Program and 

subsequently amended under other 

laws, encourages implementation and 

evaluation of value pricing pilot projects 

to manage congestion through tolling 

and other pricing mechanisms on 

facilities both on and off the Interstate 

System. All these current tolling 

authorities are separate and distinct 

from the ISRRPP. 

3. FAST Act Amendments to the 

ISRRPP 

The FAST Act amendments to the 

ISRRPP create several changes. First, 

acknowledging the key role that State 

legislative authority has in 

implementing the ISRRPP, the FAST 

Act adds the specific selection criterion 

that ‘‘a State has the authority required 

for the project to proceed.’’ This 

addresses a common challenge facing 

those States that have held provisional 

approvals, i.e., securing legal authority 

from their State legislatures to collect 

tolls on a currently toll-free Interstate 

highway. 

Second, the FAST Act specifies 

timeframes under which States with 

provisional approvals must complete 

the program’s requirements. Any State 

receiving a provisional approval as a 

result of this solicitation will have 3 

years from the date of the approval to 

fully satisfy the program criteria, 

complete environmental review under 

NEPA, and execute a toll agreement 

with FHWA. The FAST Act allows for 

a 1-year extension of the 3-year 

provisional approval if the State 

demonstrates material progress toward 

implementation of its pilot project. 

Third, the FAST Act gave the States 

holding provisional approvals at the 

time the FAST Act was enacted 1 year 

to satisfy the program criteria or request 

an extension for an additional year. On 

the date of enactment, December 4, 

2015, three States—Missouri, North 

Carolina and Virginia—held ISRRPP 

provisional approvals. Since then, all 

three have relinquished their program 

slots. 

B. Program Slots 

In announcing this new ISRRPP 

solicitation—the first open call for pilot 

projects since 1998—FHWA seeks 

applications from States for candidate 

projects under the program. 

Based on the program’s experience, 

FHWA believes it unlikely that any 

State would invest the considerable 

effort to develop an application that 

fully satisfies the program criteria 

without assurance that its efforts would 

not be superseded by a competing 

applicant. Conversely, FHWA 

recognizes that provisional approval 

and the reservation of a program slot— 

while allowing a State to work in 

earnest to meet the program’s 

environmental, financial, public support 

and operational requirements—also 

inhibits other States from pursuing 

similar projects. Therefore, FHWA will 

review each candidate project 

thoroughly before making any 

commitment of provisional approval. 

As provided in section 1411(c) of the 

FAST Act, FHWA may grant provisional 

approval to up to three projects that will 

fully implement the ISRRPP 

(reconstruct or rehabilitate an Interstate 

segment and convert it to a toll facility) 

based on an assessment that eligibility 

and selection criteria can be met. At the 

present time, all three program slots are 

available. 

This solicitation does not offer any 

Federal funds for these projects. 

Formula Federal-aid highway funds 

may be used toward a candidate project, 

subject to the eligibility requirements 

for these funds. In addition, a candidate 

project may qualify for credit assistance 

under 23 U.S.C. 601–609, the DOT’s 

TIFIA credit program. 

While section 1216(b)(6) of TEA–21 

specifically prohibited the use of 

Interstate Maintenance (IM) funds on 

the Interstate facility covered by an 

ISRRPP project during the period tolls 

are collected, the IM program has since 

been discontinued. Given the expansion 

of tolling authority under 23 U.S.C. 129, 

the restriction on use of IM funds is not 

applied to the use of eligible funding 

sources, including the National 

Highway Performance Program. 

C. Eligibility Information 

To be selected for provisional 

approval in the ISRRPP, an applicant 

must be a State transportation 

department (State DOT) and the project 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with NOTICES
48880 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2017 / Notices 

must be a facility on the Interstate 

System. 

1. Interstate Facility 

A facility on the Interstate System is 

considered to be a route on the Dwight 

D. Eisenhower National System of 

Interstate and Defense Highways as 

described in 23 U.S.C. 103(c). This is 

the originally designated Interstate 

System and includes those Interstate 

additions under former 23 U.S.C. 139(a). 

Each State may propose only a single 

Interstate facility as its candidate 

project, and each facility selected by 

FHWA must be in a different State. 

Note that the existing statute in 23 

U.S.C. 129(a)(1)(E) already allows for 

reconstruction or replacement of a tollfree Interstate bridge or tunnel and its 

conversion to a toll facility. For the 

purposes of the ISRRPP, the scope of the 

candidate project must include 

reconstruction or rehabilitation 

throughout the Interstate facility (not 

solely on bridges or tunnels), where 

estimated improvement costs exceed 

available funding sources and work 

cannot be advanced without the 

collection of tolls. 

2. Toll Revenue Uses 

The ISRRPP’s conditions on toll 

revenue uses reflect the intent that tolls 

are collected to reconstruct or 

rehabilitate an Interstate facility, not to 

pursue other projects. The State must 

execute an agreement with FHWA 

specifying that toll revenues received 

from operation of the facility will be 

used in accordance with the 

requirements set forth in section 

1216(b)(5) of TEA–21. This section 

requires that all toll revenues be used 

only for (1) debt service, (2) reasonable 

return on investment of any private 

person financing the project, and (3) any 

costs necessary for the improvement of 

and the proper operation and 

maintenance of the toll facility, 

including reconstruction, resurfacing, 

restoration and rehabilitation of the toll 

facility. It is important that applicants 

understand that these conditions are 

more restrictive than those that apply to 

projects authorized under 23 U.S.C. 129 

or 23 U.S.C. 166. 

Additionally, the toll agreement must 

include a provision that the State will 

conduct regular (e.g., annual) audits to 

ensure compliance with the provisions 

regarding use of toll revenues, and the 

results of these audits will be 

transmitted to FHWA. 

The FHWA is concerned that the 

initiation of new toll collection should 

not occur until it is evident to the 

traveling public that tolls will result in 

investment on the facility. Accordingly, 

the earliest that tolls may be imposed on 

an ISRRPP facility is the date of award 

of a contract for the physical 

reconstruction or rehabilitation of a 

significant portion of the facility. In the 

case of a design-build contract or 

public-private partnership agreement, 

this would occur when a notice to 

proceed for the physical construction 

has been issued or when the designbuilder otherwise becomes contractually 

obligated to accomplish the physical 

construction activities of the project. 

3. Federal-Aid Requirements 

Regardless of whether Federal-aid 

funds are to be used in the 

reconstruction or rehabilitation 

activities, each ISRRPP project must 

satisfy the applicable Federal laws, rules 

and regulations set forth in title 23 

U.S.C. and title 23 Code of Federal 

Regulations. 

A State receiving provisional approval 

must complete the environmental 

review and permitting process under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for 

the candidate project before it can 

receive final approval. The NEPA 

analysis must take into account not only 

the impacts of the proposed 

reconstruction or rehabilitation 

activities but also consider impacts 

associated with converting the toll-free 

facility to a toll facility. 

D. Submission Information 

A State that seeks to participate in the 

pilot program must submit an 

application that addresses the program’s 

statutory eligibility and selection 

criteria as described below. 

1. Address 

A State DOT must submit the 

application to its respective FHWA 

Division Office. Subsequent application 

tasks will also be coordinated through 

the Division Office. 

2. Content and Form of Application 

Although the State DOT may 

determine the appropriate form, the 

application package is limited to no 

more than 25 pages. The FHWA 

recommends that the project narrative 

be prepared with standard formatting 

preferences (i.e., a single-spaced 

document, using a standard 12-point 

font such as Times New Roman, with 1- 

inch margins). The project narrative 

may not exceed 25 pages in length, 

excluding cover pages and table of 

contents. The only substantive portions 

that may exceed the 25-page limit are 

supporting documents to support 

assertions or conclusions made in the 

25-page project narrative. If necessary, 

FHWA may request supplemental or 

clarifying information from the State. 

The application should include 

information required for FHWA to 

assess each of the criteria specified in 

section E (Review Information). The 

State should demonstrate the 

responsiveness of a project to any 

pertinent selection criteria with the 

most relevant information it can 

provide, regardless of whether such 

information has been specifically 

requested, or identified, in this notice. 

The application should describe all 

critical project milestones and the 

State’s current progress toward 

achieving them. 

The FHWA recommends that the 

application adhere to the following 

basic outline and the project narrative 

include a table of contents, maps, and 

graphics as appropriate to inform the 

review. The specific statutory references 

from section 1216 of TEA–21 (as 

amended by section 1411 of the FAST 

Act) are noted in brackets after each 

item: 

i. Project Description: An 

identification of the facility on the 

Interstate System proposed to become a 

toll facility, including the age, 

condition, and intensity of use of the 

facility [1216(b)(3)(A)]. 

ii. MPO Consultation: In the case of a 

facility that affects a metropolitan area, 

a description of the State’s current 

consultations regarding the candidate 

project with that area’s metropolitan 

planning organization (MPO) 

established under 23 U.S.C. 134. Full 

satisfaction of this eligibility criteria 

requires an assurance that the MPO for 

the area has been consulted concerning 

the placement and amount of tolls on 

the facility [1216(b)(3)(B)]. 

iii. Financial Analysis: An analysis 

demonstrating that the facility could not 

be maintained or improved to meet 

current or future needs from the State’s 

Federal-aid apportionments and 

allocations and from revenues for 

highways from any other source without 

toll revenues [1216(b)(3)(C)]. 

iv. Facility Management Plan: 

(a) A plan for implementing tolls on 

the facility [1216(b)(3)(D)(i)]. Note that 

an approved plan must take into 

account the interests of local, regional, 

and interstate travelers [1216(b)(4)(C)]. 

(b) A proposed schedule and finance 

plan for the reconstruction or 

rehabilitation of the facility using toll 

revenues [1216(b)(3)(D)(ii)]. The plan 

should give extensive focus to the 

development phase requirements, 

including among its milestones the 

completion of NEPA, the acquisition of 

tolling authority from the legislature, 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2017 / Notices 48881 

and the issuance of any debt backed by 

toll revenues. 

(c) A description of the public 

transportation agency that will be 

responsible for implementation and 

administration of the candidate project 

[1216(b)(3)(D)(iii)]. 

(d) A description of whether 

consideration will be given to 

privatizing the maintenance and 

operational aspects of the facility, while 

retaining legal and administrative 

control of the portion of the Interstate 

route [1216(b)(3)(D)(iv)]. Note that the 

ISRRPP selection criteria require the 

State to give preference to the use of a 

public toll agency with demonstrated 

capability to build, operate and 

maintain a toll expressway system 

meeting criteria for the Interstate System 

[1216(b)(4)(E)]. 

(e) A statement as to whether the State 

currently has the authority required for 

the toll project to proceed and, if not, a 

plan and timetable for when such 

authority will be obtained 

[1216(b)(4)(F)]. 

3. Submission Date 

A State DOT must submit the 

application to its FHWA Division Office 

by local close of business on February 

20, 2018. States are strongly encouraged 

to work closely with their respective 

Division Offices throughout the 

preparation of the application. 

E. Review Information 

1. Review and Selection Process 

The FHWA will perform an initial 

eligibility review of an application 

received by the submission date. Based 

on its knowledge of the proposed 

project and the State’s highway 

program, FHWA will evaluate the 

project’s technical and financial 

feasibility, risks, planning approvals, 

NEPA and other environmental reviews/ 

approvals, tolling authority, agreements 

to operate and maintain a toll 

expressway system, and other 

implementation agreements. The FHWA 

staff will review and compare all 

applications received from the States. 

Candidate projects will be rated as Not 

Recommended, Recommended, or 

Highly Recommended. The projects will 

be advanced to the FHWA 

Administrator who will select projects 

to award provisional approvals. 

2. Rating Criteria 

The FHWA Headquarters evaluation 

team will use the information in the 

application to assess the State’s 

readiness and capability to fully satisfy 

the ISRRPP program criteria in order to 

deliver the candidate project. Based 

upon this evaluation, FHWA will 

provide up to three provisional 

approvals to States that will be expected 

to fully satisfy the following selection 

criteria within 3 years. These criteria are 

set forth (in italics) in section 1216(b)(4) 

of TEA–21 as amended by section 

1411(c)(1) of the FAST Act: 

A. The State is unable to reconstruct 

or rehabilitate the proposed toll facility 

using existing apportionments. Because 

Federal-aid formula apportionments can 

support municipal bond issues (i.e. 

GARVEEs), the State must demonstrate 

that toll revenue financing (whether 

through the TIFIA program or another 

capital market source) is essential to 

raising the needed funds. 

B. The facility has a sufficient 

intensity of use, age, or condition to 

warrant the collection of tolls. A State 

should use its asset management 

process or life cycle planning analysis to 

support this criterion. This effort should 

include conducting a performance gap 

analysis to identify deficiencies 

hindering progress toward improving or 

preserving the facility and achieving 

and sustaining the desired state of good 

repair. The FHWA will give preference 

to those facilities with a greater gap 

between current/projected and target 

performance. 

C. The State plan for implementing 

tolls on the facility takes into account 

the interests of local, regional, and 

interstate travelers. The FHWA will give 

priority consideration to candidate 

projects that have already been 

considered for tolling as a strategy in 

their State and MPO long-range plans, 

which should also take into account the 

impact of tolling on local, regional, and 

interstate freight movement. 

D. The State plan for reconstruction 

or rehabilitation of the facility using toll 

revenues is reasonable. A reasonable 

plan will balance the estimated sources 

and uses of funds in accordance with 

the requirements on toll revenue use set 

forth in section 1216(b)(5) of TEA–21. 

Likewise, the estimated cost of the 

candidate project must be matched by a 

financial plan that includes traffic and 

revenue projections sufficient to secure 

the needed debt component. 

E. The State has given preference to 

the use of a public toll agency with 

demonstrated capability to build, 

operate, and maintain a toll expressway 

system meeting criteria for the Interstate 

System. Should a State determine that 

its public toll agencies lack the 

capability or resources to take on the 

candidate project, a public-private 

partnership may well provide a viable 

alternative. 

F. The State has the authority 

required for the project to proceed. The 

lack of such authority has previously 

prevented provisionally approved 

projects from fully satisfying the 

program criteria. The FHWA will give 

priority consideration to candidate 

projects that have already obtained 

statutory authority to toll the candidate 

project or, lacking that, demonstrate the 

likelihood of obtaining the authority to 

toll the candidate project as evidenced 

by expressions of support for the project 

from State and local governments, 

community interests, and the public. 

The FHWA will also give priority 

consideration to candidate projects that 

demonstrate the likelihood of 

completing the environmental review 

and permitting process under the NEPA 

within 3 years of provisional approval. 

In addition, the FHWA Headquarters 

evaluation team will also consider the 

geographic distribution of candidate 

projects selected and will give priority 

consideration to projects critical to the 

national and regional movement of 

people and goods. 

F. Requirements for Provisionally 

Approved Projects 

Should FHWA provisionally approve 

a candidate project, a State will have 3 

years from the date the provisional 

approval is granted in which to: 

• Submit a complete application that 

fully satisfies the eligibility and 

selection criteria noted above 

[1216(b)(6)(A)(i)]. 

• Complete environmental review 

and permitting process under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for 

the project [1216(b)(6)(A)(ii)]. 

• Execute a toll agreement 

[1216(b)(6)(A)(iii)]. 

Further, FHWA may allow for a 1-year 

extension of the provisional approval if 

the State demonstrates material progress 

toward implementation of the project as 

evidenced by: 

• Substantial progress in completing 

the environmental review and 

permitting process for the pilot project 

under NEPA [1216(b)(6)(B)(i)]. 

• Funding and financing 

commitments for the project 

[1216(b)(6)(B)(ii)]. 

• Expressions of support for the 

project from State and local 

governments, community interests, and 

the public [1216(b)(6)(B)(iii)]. 

• Submission of a facility 

management plan as noted under the 

eligibility criteria above 

[1216(b)(6)(B)(iv)]. 

Given the extensive State DOT and 

FHWA collaboration needed to 

implement a project under the ISRRPP, 

FHWA will regularly assess the progress 

of each provisionally approved project. 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with NOTICES
48882 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2017 / Notices 

Should it become evident that the 

project will not meet the statutory 

deadline, FHWA reserves the right to 

revoke the provisional approval prior to 

the deadline and re-offer the program 

slot to other State DOTs. 

Brandye L. Hendrickson, 

Acting Administrator, Federal Highway 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2017–22775 Filed 10–19–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2017–0166] 

Hours of Service of Drivers: 

Application for Exemption; MBI Energy 

Services (MBI) 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; 

denial of application for exemption. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its 

decision to deny the application of MBI 

Energy Services (MBI) from the 

requirement that a motor carrier install 

and require each of its drivers to use an 

electronic logging device (ELD) to 

record the driver’s hours of service 

(HOS) no later than December 18, 2017. 

MBI had requested the exemption for all 

of its vehicles equipped with a singlepassenger cab, which are used in 

applications where travel is incidental 

to normal work activities and which 

require special oversize/overweight 

permits to travel on public roads. 

FMCSA has analyzed the exemption 

application and public comments, and 

has determined that the applicant 

would not achieve a level of safety that 

is equivalent to, or greater than, the 

level that would be achieved absent 

such exemption. FMCSA therefore 

denies MBI’s application for exemption. 

DATES: FMCSA denies this application 

for exemption effective October 20, 

2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information concerning this notice, 

contact Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, 

FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations 

Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and 

Vehicle Safety Standards; Telephone: 

614–942–6477. Email: MCPSD@dot.gov. 

If you have questions on viewing or 

submitting material to the docket, 

contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 

366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 

31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions 

from certain Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA 

must publish a notice of each exemption 

request in the Federal Register (49 CFR 

381.315(a)). The Agency must provide 

the public an opportunity to inspect the 

information relevant to the application, 

including any safety analyses that have 

been conducted. The Agency must also 

provide an opportunity for public 

comment on the request. 

FMCSA reviews safety analyses and 

public comments submitted, and 

determines whether granting the 

exemption would likely achieve a level 

of safety equivalent to, or greater than, 

the level that would be achieved by the 

current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). 

The decision of the Agency must be 

published in the Federal Register (49 

CFR 381.315(b)) with the reason for the 

grant or denial, and, if granted, the 

specific person or class of persons 

receiving the exemption, and the 

regulatory provision or provisions from 

which exemption is granted. The notice 

must also specify the effective period of 

the exemption (up to 5 years), and 

explain the terms and conditions of the 

exemption. The exemption may be 

renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)). 

Request for Exemption 

MBI is a provider of water 

management logistics and wellintervention services in North Dakota, 

South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, and 

Colorado. The requested exemption 

would affect 65 MBI Energy Services 

drivers operating 42 single-cab vehicles 

classified in North Dakota as Special 

Mobile Equipment (SME). These 

vehicles meet the definition of a 

commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in 49 

CFR 390.5 and therefore are subject to 

the ELD or AOBRD mandate. These 

specialized vehicles perform various 

work activities in an environment where 

connectivity is limited, working and 

road conditions are rough, and the 

necessity for driving on public roads is 

sporadic and incidental to the overall 

work being performed. The vehicles 

may sit on work locations for long 

periods of time, up to weeks or even 

months. These vehicles are typically 

oversize and overweight, requiring 

special permits for transport. Many 

States do not require registration, as 

they build the registration fees into the 

permit process. 

Examples of SMEs meeting the 

definition of a CMV having a single cab 

include cranes, workover rigs, and swab 

units. Single cabs have reduced space 

for installing rough-terrain-capable 

AOBRDs or ELDs. The devices used 

must be capable of satellite 

communication where cell 

communication is poor to non-existent. 

The installation of rugged logging units, 

weighing more than typical units used 

in highway applications, would reduce 

driver visibility in an already large 

vehicle due to the limited space found 

in single-cab vehicles. Additionally, 

installation may require a unit being 

positioned over the driver’s head, 

increasing the risk of the unit falling on 

the driver resulting in injury given the 

rough terrain upon which the vehicles 

travel or a vehicle accident involving 

the travelling public. 

While these vehicles normally travel 

little, business demand may require MBI 

vehicles to move more often than 8 days 

in a 30-day period, the maximum 

frequency allowed by 49 CFR 

395.8(a)(1)(iii)(A)(1) for the use of paper 

RODS instead of ELDs. According to 

MBI, the current regulations do not 

address circumstances where the 

vehicle’s exemption status is sporadic in 

nature, thus requiring MBI to install an 

ELD to remain compliant during times 

not covered by the exemption. While 

alternatives exist to industrial-grade 

logging units, the alternatives usually 

involve cell phones or cell-capable 

tablets where the terrain or remote 

locations of work may inhibit logging 

device communication for extended 

periods of time. Many worksites 

prohibit cell phone usage due to safety 

concerns. Additionally, installations in 

special vehicles will increase costs 

substantially due to the unusual 

configurations of single cab vehicles 

requiring specialized wiring harnesses 

and custom installation kits. MBI 

requested a 5-year exemption. 

Public Comments 

On July 10, 2017, FMCSA published 

MBI’s application for exemption and 

requested public comment (82 FR 

31798). The Agency received five 

comments to the docket, from CMV 

drivers, a Commercial Vehicle Safety 

Alliance (CVSA) inspector, and the 

Owner-Operator Independent Driver’s 

Association (OOIDA). All of the 

commenters opposed the MBI 

application for exemption. According to 

commenters, MBI’s request would place 

a burden on law enforcement officers in 

tracking exceptions from the regulations 

and open the door for other oil field 

service companies and crane operating 

companies to request similar exception 

status. Commenters stated that the 

purpose of the ELDs is to force drivers 

and carriers to record their HOS 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with NOTICES