[Federal Register: February 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 36)]
[Notices]
[Page 8418-8421]
[DOCID:fr24fe10-153]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61530; File No. SR-CBOE-2010-014]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to a Settlement Payment Obligation

February 17, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on February 3, 2010, the Chicago Board Options
Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the CBOE. CBOE has filed the proposal
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(3) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing
with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    CBOE is filing this proposed rule change with the Commission under
Section 19(b) of the Act in connection with a matter that is concerned
solely with the administration of the Exchange.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, CBOE included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The CBOE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections
A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange agreed to make a Payment described below pursuant to
the Stipulation of Settlement (``Stipulation'') into which the Exchange
entered on August 20, 2008, with The Board of Trade of the City of
Chicago, Inc. (``Board of Trade'' or ``CBOT''), its parent company CME
Group, Inc. (``CME Group''), and a class of persons (collectively, the
``CBOT Parties'').\6\ The Stipulation resolves a lawsuit (``CBOT
Lawsuit'') brought by the CBOT Parties against the Exchange and its
Board of Directors (``CBOE Board'').\7\ The Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware (the ``Delaware Court'') approved the Stipulation on
June 3, 2009 in a Memorandum Opinion (``Opinion'') and entered its
Order of Final Approval and Final Judgment on July 29, 2009.\8\ On
December 2, 2009, the Delaware Supreme Court approved the dismissal of
all appeals of the Order of Final Approval and Final Judgment. The
dismissal constitutes the final judicial approval of the Stipulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Stipulation can be found at (http://www.cboe.org/Legal/
pdf/StipulationofSettlement.pdf). The Stipulation was amended on
September 30, 2008 to change, among other things, an eligibility
date to participate in the settlement. This first amendment can be
found at (http://www.cboe.org/Legal/pdf/
AmendmenttoStipulationofSettlement.pdf). The Stipulation also was
amended on October 6, 2008 to change, among other things, the
settlement period. This second amendment can be found at (http://
www.cboe.org/Legal/pdf/SecondAmendment.pdf).
    \7\ CME Group Inc. et al. v. CBOE Inc. et al., Civil Action No.
2369-VCN (Filed Aug. 23, 2006).
    \8\ CME Group Inc. et al. v. CBOE Inc. et al., Civil Action No.
2369-VCN (Memorandum Opinion dated June 3, 2009). This Opinion can
be found at (http://www.cboe.org/Legal/pdf/_0603134855_001.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is filing this proposed rule change in connection with
its obligation to make the Payment pursuant to the Stipulation. The

Exchange has concluded that the Payment is part of the business
decision it made to resolve the CBOT Lawsuit, and that its act of
making the Payment therefore is concerned solely with the
administration of the Exchange. Even though CBOE believes that this
rule filing does not implicate its responsibilities as a self-
regulatory organization (``SRO''), and thus is not required to be
submitted as a proposed rule change, the Exchange is filing it with the
SEC out of an abundance of caution because CBOE agreed in the
Stipulation to use its best efforts to obtain any necessary SEC
approval to make the Payment. CBOE has subsequently concluded that the
proposed rule change can be filed under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the
Exchange Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(3) \10\ thereunder because the
proposed rule change is concerned solely with the administration of the
Exchange. Accordingly, the proposed rule change will take effect upon
its filing with the SEC. CBOE has concluded that this rule filing
satisfies the conditions for making the payment that are contained in
the Stipulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(i) Background on the CBOT Lawsuit
    As described in the Stipulation, CBOE was established and initially
funded by the Board of Trade. As a result, in 1972, the Board of Trade
included a right in Article Fifth(b) (``Article Fifth(b)'') of CBOE's
Certificate of Incorporation--known as the ``Exercise Right''--that
allows a Board of Trade ``member'' to become a member of CBOE without
separately paying for that membership. Board of Trade members who
became CBOE members pursuant to Article Fifth(b) were known as
``Exerciser Members.'' Under CBOE rules, only an individual can become
an Exerciser Member.
    In response to CBOE's plans to demutualize, the Board of Trade,
which had already demutualized, its parent CBOT Holdings, Inc. (``CBOT
Holdings''), and two individuals representing a class of certain Board
of Trade members filed the CBOT Lawsuit on August 23, 2006. In that
lawsuit, the plaintiffs sought, among other things, a declaratory
judgment that CBOE was required, by Article Fifth(b) and an agreement
interpreting Article Fifth(b), to treat Exerciser Members of CBOE the
same in the demutualization as CBOE members who paid for their
memberships (``CBOE Seat Owners'').
    On October 17, 2006, CBOT Holdings and Chicago Mercantile Exchange
Holdings, Inc., now known as CME Group, announced a transaction whereby
CME Group would merge with CBOT Holdings, and CME Group would survive
the merger (the ``CME Transaction''), with the Board of Trade becoming
a wholly-owned subsidiary of CME Group after the CME Transaction. In
response to that announcement, CBOE filed an interpretation of Article
Fifth(b) with the Commission on December 12, 2006 pursuant to Section
19(b) of the Exchange Act.\11\ In that rule filing (the ``Eligibility
Rule Filing''), CBOE sought the Commission's approval of its
interpretation of Article Fifth(b) that, upon consummation of the CME
Transaction, no persons any longer would qualify as ``members'' of the
Board of Trade as that term is used in Article Fifth(b) and that, as a
result, no person would be eligible to be an Exerciser Member of
CBOE.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55190 (Jan. 29,
2007), 72 FR 5472 (Feb. 6, 2007) (notice of filing of SR-CBOE-2006-
106).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 6, 2007, CME Group and CBOT Holdings announced that the
vote to approve the CME Transaction would take place on July 9, 2007
and that, if approved, the CME Transaction would be consummated
immediately thereafter. To address the impact of the CME Transaction on
the membership status of Exerciser Members, the CBOE filed
Interpretation and Policy .01 of CBOE Rule 3.19 (the ``Continued
Membership Interpretation'') with the SEC on July 2, 2007.\13\ The
Continued Membership Interpretation, which was effective upon filing,
provided that persons who were Exerciser Members in good standing
before the consummation of the CME Transaction would temporarily retain
their CBOE membership status until the SEC ruled on the Eligibility
Rule Filing (persons who temporarily retained their CBOE membership
status pursuant to the Continued Membership Interpretation and the
Transition Rule Filing (as defined below) are referred to as ``CBOE
Temporary Members,'' and the rights they hold are referred to as
``Temporary Memberships'').\14\ On July 9, 2007, the shareholders of
CME Group and CBOT Holdings and members of the Board of Trade voted to
approve the CME Transaction. The CME Transaction was consummated on
July 12, 2007, and the Board of Trade became a wholly-owned subsidiary
of CME Group.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56016 (Jul. 5,
2007), 72 FR 38106 (Jul. 12, 2007) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness of SR-CBOE-2007-77).
    \14\ In order to be an Exerciser Member immediately prior to the
CME Transaction, a CBOT ``member'' needed to hold (i) one B-1
Membership, (ii) one Exercise Right Privilege, and (iii) 27,338
shares of CBOT Common Stock.
    \15\ As part of the CME Transaction, the 27,338 shares of CBOT
Common Stock were converted into 10,251.75 shares of CME Group
Common Stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 10, 2007, CBOE filed Interpretation and Policy .02 of
CBOE Rule 3.19 (the ``Transition Rule Filing'') with the SEC.\16\ The
Transition Rule Filing, which was effective upon filing, provided that
the membership status of CBOE Temporary Members would continue after
the SEC approved the Eligibility Rule Filing until, among other things,
the consummation of a transaction pursuant to which either CBOE was
converted into a stock corporation or memberships in CBOE were
converted into stock. Pursuant to the Continued Membership
Interpretation and the Transition Rule Filing, all CBOE Temporary
Members were required to pay access fees (``Access Fees'') to CBOE to
have continued trading access to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56458 (Sept. 18,
2007), 72 FR 54309 (Sept. 24, 2007) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness of SR-CBOE-2007-107).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 15, 2008, the SEC approved the interpretation in the
Eligibility Rule Filing that no person qualifies to become or remain an
Exerciser Member of CBOE pursuant to Article Fifth(b) following the CME
Transaction.\17\ On March 14, 2008, certain CBOT Parties filed a
Petition for Review in the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit, Case No. 08-1116, seeking review of the
SEC order approving the Eligibility Rule Filing (the ``Federal
Appeal''). The Federal Appeal was dismissed on December 4, 2009,
following the termination of the CBOT Lawsuit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57159 (Jan. 15,
2008), 73 FR 3769 (Jan. 22, 2008) (order approving SR-CBOE-2006-
106).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, CBOE entered into the Stipulation with the CBOT
Parties on August 20, 2008 to settle the CBOT Lawsuit. The Stipulation
was approved by the CBOE membership on September 17, 2008, and was
approved by the Delaware Court on June 3, 2009. The Stipulation, among
other things, provides for the payment of consideration to the members
of the settlement class.
    The Stipulation provides that subject to Commission approval, part
of that consideration would be a payment (``Payment'') to class members
who also qualified as CBOE Temporary Members and who beneficially owned
the three parts necessary to be an Exerciser Member on July 11, 2007
(``Eligible

CBOE Temporary Members'').\18\ The Payment to each such Eligible CBOE
Temporary Member would equal the total amount of Access Fees paid to
CBOE by such Eligible CBOE Temporary Member during the period from June
1, 2008 to the date CBOE demutualizes (``CBOE Demutualization Date'')
or the date CBOE is restructured in a different manner (``CBOE
Conversion Event Date'').\19\ The Payment would be measured exclusively
in respect of Access Fees that were paid in respect of CBOE Temporary
Membership(s) held because the Eligible CBOE Temporary Member
beneficially owned the three parts necessary to be an Exerciser Member
on July 11, 2007. Under the Stipulation, the Payment would be paid by
CBOE within five business days of the later of (i) the CBOE
Demutualization Date or the CBOE Conversion Event Date, and (ii) the
SEC's order approving CBOE's request to make the Payment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 14. The Payment is referred to in the
Stipulation as the ``Supplemental Fee Based Payment,'' and is
described in paragraph 36G of the Stipulation.
    \19\ The Stipulation defines the ``CBOE Demutualization Date''
as ``the date on which the CBOE Demutualization Transaction is
effective,'' the ``CBOE Demutualization Transaction'' as the ``the
transaction in which the memberships held by CBOE Seat Owners will
be converted into or exchanged for Class A Common Stock of the CBOE
Demutualization Entity,'' and the ``CBOE Demutualization Entity'' as
``CBOE Holdings, Inc., a Delaware stock corporation, or such other
Delaware stock corporation, including CBOE, if applicable, the
common stock of which is issued to CBOE Seat Owners and [certain
members of the settlement class] in the CBOE Demutualization
Transaction.''
    In addition, the Stipulation defines the ``CBOE Conversion Event
Date'' as ``the date on which a CBOE Conversion Event is
effective,'' and the ``CBOE Conversion Event'' as ``(i) any
consolidation, combination or merger of CBOE with another entity,
other than the CBOE Demutualization Transaction, regardless of which
entity is the surviving entity, in connection with which CBOE Seat
Owners shall be entitled to receive securities, cash, assets, rights
or other property or things of value (or any combination thereof) in
respect of their memberships, (ii) the sale, lease, transfer,
license or other disposition, in a single transaction or series of
transactions, of all or substantially all of the assets of CBOE,
(iii) any liquidation, dissolution, or winding up of CBOE or (iv)
any recapitalization, reorganization or other transaction or event,
or series of transactions or events, other than the CBOE
Demutualization Transaction, upon the effectiveness of which CBOE
Seat Owners shall be entitled to receive securities, cash, assets,
rights or other property or things of value (or any combination
thereof) upon conversion, sale or other disposition of, or in
exchange for, their memberships.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(ii) Discussion
    Under paragraph 22 of CBOE's fee schedule, every CBOE Temporary
Member is required to pay a monthly fee to CBOE to have access to the
Exchange (i.e., an Access Fee). This paragraph provides in part that
this fee ``is assessed to each person granted temporary CBOE membership
status under CBOE Rule 3.19.02,'' and that this fee ``is non-
refundable.''
    CBOE is filing this proposed rule change to reflect its conclusion
that the Payment is part of the business decision it made to resolve
the CBOT Lawsuit, and that its act of making the Payment therefore is
concerned solely with the administration of the Exchange.\20\ In this
regard, CBOE believes that while the Payment is measured by the Access
Fees paid by Eligible CBOE Temporary Members, it should not be viewed
as a refund or waiver of such fees. Rather, it should be viewed as part
of the settlement consideration that CBOE made the business decision to
pay, as reflected in the Stipulation, to resolve the CBOT Lawsuit. When
the Payment is viewed in this manner, CBOE believes that its act of
making the Payment is an action concerned solely with the
administration of the Exchange. As noted above, CBOE is filing this
interpretation out of an abundance of caution, even though CBOE
believes that it does not implicate CBOE's obligations as an SRO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ As noted above, CBOE has determined to file the proposed
rule change under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 19b-4(f)(3) thereunder because it is concerned solely with the
administration of CBOE. 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii) and 17 CFR
240.19b-4(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above and in detail in the Delaware Court's Opinion,
the settlement set forth in the Stipulation is the product of hard-
fought negotiations between CBOE and the CBOT Parties. The litigation
was commenced by the CBOT Parties in August 2006, but the dispute
underlying the litigation--namely, the scope of the Exercise Right--has
been subject to disagreements and disputes between CBOE and the CBOT
almost since the inception of the Exercise Right in 1972. The
settlement is intended to resolve once and for all the disputes over
the Exercise Right. The court approved the settlement, including the
Payment, finding it to be fair and reasonable.
    In approving the Payment, as well as another portion of the total
settlement consideration related to Access Fees (collectively with the
Payment, the ``Additional Payments''), the Delaware Court rejected
objections by certain member organizations that the Additional Payments
should also be paid to CBOE member organizations. Specifically, the
Delaware Court stated that:

    If rights to Additional Payments were opened up to legal
entities generally, the exposure of CBOE would increase materially.
This is but one part of a much larger settlement negotiation
process. In the context of the overall settlement and in recognition
that many contested lines had to be drawn, the Court concludes that
the conditions for qualifying for Additional Payments were
established reasonably. In short, the objections of [those member
organizations] to the fairness of the Settlement are overruled.
(footnotes omitted)

Thus, the Delaware Court recognized that the Additional Payments,
including the Payment, were the product of a highly-negotiated
settlement.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ While the Delaware Court referred to these Additional
Payments as ``rebates'' in its Opinion, we believe that these
Additional Payments are more properly characterized as part of the
business decision to settle the CBOT Lawsuit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the Delaware Court's approval of the settlement, the
CBOE membership voted to approve the settlement on September 17, 2008.
Prior to that membership vote, CBOE provided the membership with
electronic access to a copy of the Stipulation, as well as an
information circular on August 20, 2008 that summarized key settlement
terms.\22\ This information circular outlined the total settlement
consideration, and included a description of the Payment. Thus, CBOE
believes that the membership was fully informed that the Payment was
part of the settlement consideration that CBOE made the business
decision to pay in order to resolve the CBOT Lawsuit. Accordingly, CBOE
believes that the Payment should be viewed as such, rather than as a
refund or waiver of Access Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See CBOE Information Circular IC08-143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE believes that its act of making the Payment does not implicate
its responsibilities under Section 6(b)(4) of the Exchange Act, which
requires CBOE's rules to ``provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers
and other persons using its facilities.'' \23\ In this regard, CBOE
believes that its act of making the Payment should not viewed as a fee
change subject to this provision. Instead, CBOE believes that its act
of making the Payment should be viewed as an undertaking to give full
effect to the business decision it made to resolve the CBOT Lawsuit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, CBOE believes that its act of making the Payment does
not implicate its responsibilities under Sections 6(b)(5) and 6(b)(8)
of the Exchange Act.\24\ Section 6(b)(5) requires CBOE's rules ``to
promote just and equitable principles of trade'' and to avoid ``unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers,''

and Section 6(b)(8) requires CBOE's rules to ``not impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of'' the Exchange Act.\25\ CBOE believes that its act of making the
Payment should not be viewed as treating an Eligible CBOE Temporary
Member differently from a non-Eligible CBOE Temporary Member. Rather,
CBOE believes that its act of making the Payment should be viewed as an
undertaking to give full effect to the business decision it made to
resolve the CBOT Lawsuit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5) and (b)(8).
    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that this
proposed rule change is not inconsistent with its obligations under
Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act.\26\ In particular, CBOE believes that
its act of making the Payment does not implicate its obligations under
Sections 6(b)(4), 6(b)(5) and 6(b)(8) of the Exchange Act,\27\ or other
obligations it has under Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act.\28\ Rather,
CBOE believes that its act of making the Payment should be viewed as an
undertaking to give full effect to the business decision it made to
resolve the CBOT Lawsuit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (b)(5) and (b)(8).
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \29\ and subparagraph (f)(3) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\30\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \30\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2010-014 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2010-014. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the self-regulatory
organization. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
CBOE-2010-014 and should be submitted on or before March 17, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-3641 Filed 2-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 47399]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20515]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of
Directors

TIME AND DATE: The meeting will be held on September 27, 2018, from
12:00 noon to 3:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time.

PLACE: This meeting will be open to the public via conference call. Any
interested person may call 1-877-422-1931, passcode<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
listen and participate in this meeting.

STATUS: Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board
of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and
implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to
that end, may consider matters properly before the Board. An agenda for
this meeting will be available no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight
Time, September 17, 2018, at https://ucrplan.org.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair,
Unified Carrier Registration Board of Directors at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

     Issued on: September 7, 2018.
 Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2018-20515 Filed 9-17-18; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 249 (Monday, December 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72135-72136]
[FR Doc No: 2019-28099]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Privacy Act of 1974: System of Records

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation.

ACTION: Rescindment of a system of records notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of
Transportation proposes to rescind a system of records under the
Privacy Act of 1974 entitled DOT/FMCSA 006 SAFETYNET. This system of
records facilitates authorized sharing of Department of Transportation
Federal Motor Carrier Administration records of companies and drivers
of commercial motor vehicles and shipping and freight-forwarding
companies registered with FMCSA collected and maintained in the Motor
Carrier Information Management System (MCMIS).

DATES: Written comments should be submitted on or before January 29,
2020. The Department may publish an amended SORN in light of any
comments received. This new system will be effective January 29, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number Docket
No. INSERT: Docket Number, by one of the following methods:
     Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday
through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number insert docket number. All comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments

received in 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 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or to the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions, please contact:
Director, Office of Information Technology, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20590. For privacy issues, please contact:
Claire W. Barrett, Departmental Chief Privacy Officer, Department of
Transportation, Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>, privacy@dot.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FMCSA uses SAFETYNET to share records
maintained in the Motor Carrier Information Management System (MCMIS)
with FMCSA field offices and state and local law enforcement officials.
These records contain information on companies and drivers of
commercial motor vehicles and shipping and freight-forwarding companies
registered with FMCSA. In addition, some state and or local law
enforcement entities may maintain complaint records in their local
versions of SAFETYNET, however those records are not federal records
and are outside the bounds of the Department's Privacy Act notices.
FMCSA does not maintain complaint information in SAFETYNET. MCMIS is
the authoritative system of records for these records and is covered by
the Privacy Act system of records notice DOT/FMCSA-001, Motor Carrier
Information Management System. All records in SAFETYNET are inputs to
or duplicate copies of MCMIS records subject to the DOT/FMCSA-001
system of records notice, therefore a separate notice is not required.
Records transmitted to MCMIS via SAFETYNET and the authoritative copy
received from MCMIS will continue to be updated on a daily basis. The
rescindment of this notice ensures that the Department applies the fair
information practice principles and Privacy Act protections afforded by
the MCMIS notice in a consistent manner.

SYSTEM NAME AND NUMBER:
    DOT/FMCSA 006, SAFETYNET.

HISTORY:
    71 FR 35727, June 21, 2006.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Claire W. Barrett,
Chief Privacy Officer.
[FR Doc. 2019-28099 Filed 12-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4901-9X-P


[Federal Register: July 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 133)]
[Notices]
[Page 38072]
[DOCID:fr12jy07-50]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-200-028]

Rockies Express Pipeline LLC; Notice of Tariff Filing and
Negotiated Rate

July 5, 2007.
    Take notice that on June 29, 2007, Rockies Express Pipeline LLC
(REX) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Twenty-Third
Revised Sheet No. 22, to be effective July 1, 2007.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-13518 Filed 7-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 248)]
[Notices]
[Page 73800-73801]
[DOCID:fr28de07-83]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-1053; FRL-8511-9]

Board of Scientific Counselors, National Exposure Research
Laboratory (NERL) Standing Subcommittee Meeting--2008

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-
463, the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development (ORD), gives notice of a meeting of the Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC) National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL) Standing
Subcommittee.

DATES: The meeting (a teleconference call) will be held on Friday,
January 18, 2008 from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. All times noted are eastern
time. The meeting may adjourn early if all business is finished.
Requests for the draft agenda or for making oral presentations at the
conference call will be accepted up to 1 business day before the
meeting.

ADDRESSES: Participation in the meeting will be by teleconference
only--meeting rooms will not be used. Members of the public may obtain
the call-in number and access code for the call from Susan Peterson,
whose contact information is listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this notice. Submit your comments, identified by
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-1053, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
     E-mail: Send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-1053.

     Fax: Fax comments to:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-1053.
     Mail: Send comments by mail to: Board of Scientific
Counselors, National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL) Standing
Subcommittee--2007 Docket, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-
1053.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver comments to: EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC), Room B102, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-
1053.

    Note: This is not a mailing address. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information

    .Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2007-1053. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov,

your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Board of Scientific

Counselors, National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL) Standing
Subcommittee--2007 Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number

for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the ORD Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Designated Federal Officer via
mail at: Susan Peterson, Mail Code 8104-R, Office of Science Policy,
Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; via phone/voice
mail at:<PHONE_NUMBER>; via fax at:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or via e-mail at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Information

    Participation in the meeting will be by teleconference only--
meeting rooms will not be used. Members of the public who wish to
obtain the call-in number and access code to participate in the
conference call may contact Susan Peterson, the Designated Federal
Officer, via any of the contact methods listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section above, by 4 working days prior to the
conference call.
    The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the subcommittee's input
to their draft letter report and follow-up from their December 11-12,
2007 face-to-face meeting. Proposed agenda items for the conference
call include, but are not limited to: Review of December 11-12, 2007
face-to-face meeting, discussion of the charge to subcommittee, and
subcommittee responses to the charge questions for the draft letter
report. The conference call is open to the public.
    Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For
information on access or services for individuals with disabilities,
please contact Susan Peterson at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request accommodation of a disability,

please contact Susan Peterson, preferably at least 10 days prior to the
meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: December 18, 2007.
Connie Bosma,
Acting Director, Office of Science Policy.
[FR Doc. E7-25284 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


DRAFT DRAFT CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINE FOR FLAT WOOD PANELING COATING AUGUST 2006 US EPA OAQPS RTP NC 27711 DRAFT CTG for Flat Wood Paneling, Docket No. EPA HQ OAR 2006 0583 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction .                     Page 3 II. Background and Overview               .. Page 4 III. Applicability                      Page 5 IV. Process Description and Sources of VOC Emissions     .. Page 6 A. Types of Flat Wood Paneling 1. Decorative Interior Panels 2. Exterior Siding 3. Tileboard B. Source of VOC Emissions V. Available Control Options..            .  .. Page 7 A. Available Controls 1. Low VOC Coatings 2. Ultraviolet Cure and Electron Beam Cure Coatings 3. Add On Controls 4. Work Practices B. The 1978 CTG and Existing State and Local Regulatory Approaches 1. Summary of the 1978 Flat Wood Paneling CTG Document 2. Summary of Existing State and Local VOC Requirements VI. Recommended Control Options..            .. Page 10 A. Emissions Limit based on Low VOC Coatings for Inks, Coatings and Adhesives B. Optional Add On Controls for Inks, Coatings and Adhesives C. Work Practices VII. Cost Effectiveness of Recommended Control Options    ... Page 11 VIII. References                      . Page 12 Appendix A 1978 CTG for Flat Wood Paneling    ..           . Page 14 Appendix B State and local regulations for flat wood paneling  .       ... Page 15 DRAFT CTG for Flat Wood Paneling, Docket No. EPA HQ OAR 2006 0583 3 I. Introduction Clean Air Act ( CAA) section 172( c)( 1) provides that state implementation plans ( SIPs) for nonattainment areas must include " reasonably available control measures" ( RACM), including " reasonably available control technology" ( RACT), for sources of emissions. Section 182( b)( 2)( A) provides that for certain nonattainment areas, States must revise their SIPs to include RACT for sources of VOC emissions covered by a control techniques guidelines ( CTG) document issued after November 15, 1990 and prior to the area's date of attainment.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) defines RACT as " the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility." 44 FR 53761 ( Sept. 17, 1979). In subsequent Federal Register notices, EPA has addressed how states can meet the RACT requirements of the Act.

CAA section 183( e) directs EPA to list for regulation those categories of products that account for at least 80 percent of the VOC emissions, on a reactivity adjusted basis, from consumer and commercial products in areas that violate the NAAQS for ozone ( i. e., ozone nonattainment areas). EPA issued the list on March 23, 1995, and has revised the list periodically. See 60 FR 15264 ( March 23, 1995); see also 71 FR 28320 ( May 16, 2006), 70 FR 69759 ( Nov. 17, 2005); 64 FR 13422 ( Mar. 18, 1999). Flat wood paneling coatings are included on the current section 183( e) list.

This draft CTG is intended to provide state and local air pollution control authorities information that should assist them in determining RACT for volatile organic compounds ( VOCs) from flat wood paneling coating. In developing this CTG, EPA, among other things, evaluated the sources of VOC emissions from the flat wood paneling coating industry and the available control approaches for addressing these emissions, including the costs of such approaches. Based on available information and data, EPA provides recommendations for RACT for flat wood paneling coating. EPA solicits comment on all aspects of this draft document.

Once finalized, States can use the recommendations in this CTG to inform their own determination as to what constitutes RACT for VOCs for flat wood paneling coatings in their particular nonattainment areas. The information contained in this document is provided only as guidance. This guidance does not change, or substitute for, applicable sections of the CAA or EPA's regulations; nor is it a regulation itself. This document does not impose any legally binding requirements on any entity. It provides only recommendations for state and local air pollution control agencies to consider in determining RACT. State and local pollution control agencies are free to implement other technically sound approaches that are consistent with the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations DRAFT CTG for Flat Wood Paneling, Docket No. EPA HQ OAR 2006 0583 4 The recommendations contained in this draft CTG are based on data and information currently available to EPA. These general recommendations may not apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances of a specific source. Regardless of whether a State chooses to implement the recommendations contained herein through State rules, or to issue State rules that adopt different approaches for RACT for VOCs from flat wood paneling coatings, States must submit their RACT rules to EPA for review and approval as part of the SIP process. EPA will evaluate the rules and determine, through notice and comment rulemaking in the SIP process, whether they meet the RACT requirements of the Act and EPA's regulations. To the extent a State adopts any of the recommendations in this guidance into its State RACT rules, interested parties can raise questions and objections about the substance of this guidance and the appropriateness of the application of this guidance to a particular situation during the development of the State rules and EPA's SIP approval process.

CAA section 182( b)( 2) provides that a CTG issued after November 15, 1990 and before the date of attainment must include the date by which States must submit SIP revisions in response to the CTG. States subject to section 182( b) should submit their SIP revisions within one year of the date of issuance of the final CTG for flat wood paneling coatings. States subject to CAA section 172( c)( 1) may take action in response to this guidance, as necessary to attain.

II. Background and Overview In June 1978, EPA published a final CTG for flat wood paneling coatings, entitled " Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, Volume VII, Factory Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling," EPA 450/ 2 78 034 ( June 1978). 1 The 1978 CTG is included as Appendix A to this draft CTG. In September 1979, EPA published guidance to provide assistance to State and local air pollution control agencies in preparing RACT regulations for a variety of categories, including flat wood paneling. 2 In 2003, EPA promulgated national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants ( NESHAP) covering surface coating of wood building products ( including flat wood paneling). See 68 FR 31746 ( May 28, 2003).

At least 28 State and local jurisdictions have regulations that control VOC emissions from surface coating operations that include flat wood paneling. Most of these regulations are general surface coating rules; a few are specific to flat wood paneling. Almost all of the jurisdictions that specifically address flat wood paneling have based their rules on the 1978 CTG. However, there are two jurisdictions in California that have requirements specific to flat wood paneling that go beyond the 1978 CTG. These jurisdictions are Placer County California Air Pollution Control District ( Placer County) and South Coast Air Quality Management District ( South Coast). A discussion of the applicability and control requirements found in the 1978 CTG and in the Placer County and South Coast rules is presented in Section V of this document. DRAFT CTG for Flat Wood Paneling, Docket No. EPA HQ OAR 2006 0583 5 The remainder of this document is divided into six sections. The first section describes the scope of sources to which this CTG applies. The second section provides a description of the flatwood paneling industry and its products and processes and identifies the sources of VOC emissions from those processes. The third section describes the available control approaches for addressing VOC emissions from this source category and summarizes state and local regulatory approaches for addressing such emissions. The fourth section provides our proposed recommendations for RACT for flat wood paneling coatings. The fifth section discusses the cost effectiveness of the recommended control approaches. The final section contains a list of references.

The September 1979 guidance includes a model RACT rule for flat wood paneling coatings. This model rule provides a general organizational framework for States to use in developing their own state rules implementing RACT for flat wood paneling coating and includes sample regulatory language. We are considering including a similar example rule when we finalize this draft CTG, and such rule would incorporate the recommendations contained in the final CTG. We are still evaluating, however, the utility of such a rule. We solicit comment on whether an example rule that incorporates the RACT recommendations contained in the final CTG would be useful.

III. Applicability This draft CTG applies to facilities that apply flat wood paneling coatings that emit at least 6.8 kg/ day ( 15 lb/ day) of VOC before consideration of controls. Flat wood paneling coatings means wood paneling products that are any interior, exterior or tileboard ( class I hardboard) panel to which a protective, decorative, or functional material or layer has been applied.

This threshold of 6.8 kg/ day ( 15 lb/ day) is consistent with the applicability threshold level contained in many previous final CTGs. It is also consistent with the purpose of the section 183( e). In section 183( e), Congress directed EPA to assist States in achieving VOC emission reductions from consumer and commercial products. These products individually may result in relatively small amounts of VOC emissions but, in the aggregate, they contribute significantly to ozone formation in nonattainment areas. Given the nature of the products and sources at issue here, we believe that the 15 lb/ day applicability threshold is appropriate.

We used the 2002 National Emission Inventory ( NEI) as the source of emissions data and statistical information concerning the flat wood paneling industry as a whole. Plants are located throughout the United States, with the Pacific Coast and the Southern States having the largest numbers of facilities. There are approximately 80 facilities in the United States that produce flat wood paneling products. We found that there are 24 flat wood paneling coating facilities that meet the 15 lb of VOC per day applicability threshold for this CTG that are located in current ozone nonattainment areas ( based on April 2006 designations) in eight States. Appendix B is a table showing the distribution of these facilities and the current State and/ or local requirements that apply to them. Information on flat wood paneling coatings facilities in the South Coast area of California DRAFT CTG for Flat Wood Paneling, Docket No. EPA HQ OAR 2006 0583 6 was not contained in the 2002 NEI database. We have other information, however, which indicates that there are 2 flat wood paneling facilities in the South Coast area. Appendix B does not identify these facilities because Appendix B focuses solely on the information we obtained from NEI.

IV. Process description and Sources of VOC Emissions A. Types of Flat Wood Paneling Flat wood paneling products are used in construction and can be classified as three main product types: decorative interior panels, exterior siding, and tileboard.

1. Decorative interior panels Interior wall paneling is usually grooved, frequently embossed, and sometimes grain printed to resemble various wood species. Interior panels are typically manufactured at the same facilities as tileboard, although in much smaller quantities.

Coated board used for interior panels are subject to industry performance specifications ( consensus standards) which have more decorative coating requirements than other products. These standards require multiple coating layers and coating steps. Production speeds of 30 to 35 boards per minute require the use of solvents that evaporate without leaving cure blisters and without leaving residual solvent in the coating film or substrate. The substrate can be hardboard, plywood, medium density fiberboard ( MDF), or particleboard.

2. Exterior Siding Exterior siding may be made of solid wood, hardboard, or waferboard. Siding made of solid wood and hardboard is typically primed at the manufacturing facility and finished in the field, although some finishing may be performed during manufacturing on a limited basis. Field applied coatings are not subject to this CTG. Exterior trim ( material made out of siding panels and used for edges and corners around the siding) is typically manufactured at the same facility and coated with the same coatings as siding.

This industry segment involves exterior products that must have coatings able to withstand extreme and long term weather conditions. These requirements impact the amount of VOC emitted from the coating of exterior siding.

3. Tileboard Tileboard is a premium interior wall paneling product made of hardboard that is used in high moisture areas of the home such as kitchens and bathrooms. Specifically, tileboard meets the specifications for Class I hardboard as approved by the American National Standards Institute. The standard specifies requirements and test methods for water absorption, thickness swelling, modulus of rupture, tensile strength, surface finish, DRAFT CTG for Flat Wood Paneling, Docket No. EPA HQ OAR 2006 0583 7 dimensions, squareness, edge straightness, and moisture content for five classes of hardboard.

Product specifications for tileboard are established by consensus standards. Tileboard has more stringent product performance requirements ( i. e., adhesion and hardness standards, household stain, scrub and moisture resistance, while maintaining a relative smooth surface) compared to standard interior wall paneling.

B. Sources of VOC Emissions Flat wood paneling, like most wood products, are vulnerable to light, moisture and insects. Coatings are used for three principal purposes: protection, appearance, and surface modification. Surface coatings are applied to reduce potential damage from environmental elements such as moisture and temperature extremes and other climaterelated hazards and from insect infestation. Coatings are also applied to enhance surfaces to make other coatings more effective. Finally, coatings are applied to improve the appearance of the wood product. Releases of VOC occur during the coating process as the coatings are mixed or thinned, as they are applied to the substrate, and as they dry and the VOC within the coating evaporate into the air.

A typical flat wood coating facility applies stains and varnishes to natural plywood panels used for wall coverings. Other plants print wood grain patterns on particle board panels that were first undercoated with an opaque coating to mask the original surface. Coatings applied to flat wood paneling include fillers, sealers, " groove" coats, primers, stains, basecoats, inks and topcoats. Most coatings are applied by direct roll coating. Filler is usually applied by reverse roll coating. The offset rotogravure process is used where the coating and printing operation requires precision printing techniques. Other coating methods include spray techniques, brush coating and curtain coating. A typical flat wood paneling coating line includes a succession of coating operations. Each individual operation consists of the application of one or more coatings followed by a heated oven to cure the coatings. A typical production line begins with mechanical alterations of the substrate ( filling of holes, cutting of grooves, sanding, etc.), followed by the coating operations, and packaging/ stacking for shipment.

Emissions of VOC from a flat wood coating facility occur primarily at the coating line, although some emissions also occur at paint mixing and storage areas. To assist facilities and regulatory agencies in estimating emissions, VOC emission factors for conventional solvent based coatings applied to interior printed panels are as follows ( expressed as kilograms of VOC per 100 m2 coated): 3.0 for filler, 0.5 for sealer, 2.4 for basecoat, 0.3 for inks, and 1.8 for topcoats. 1 V. Available Controls and State and Local Regulatory Approaches A. Available Controls 1. Low VOC Coatings DRAFT CTG for Flat Wood Paneling, Docket No. EPA HQ OAR 2006 0583 8 The use of low VOC, waterborne coatings has increased since 1978. Paint manufacturers have developed and are continuing to develop waterborne coating formulations that replace conventional organic solvent borne coatings. These coatings are generally available and often are not produced and marketed specifically for the flat wood paneling industry. Conversion to waterborne coatings can lower VOC emissions greatly, and most coatings operations are capable of converting to waterborne coatings.

2. Ultraviolet Cure and Electron Beam Cure Coatings A process change that is an alternative to waterborne coatings is the use of coatings that cure by ultraviolet ( UV) light. This technology is gaining greater acceptance and, where applicable, achieves a near 100 percent reduction of VOC emissions. In the flat wood paneling industry, UV systems have been found useful on specialty coatings operations. UV curing is extremely fast usually taking approximately 10 seconds. UV coatings are found only in the application of clear to semitransparent filler and topcoats for paneling and cabinetry products. Opaque UV coatings are not available for the flat wood paneling industry; however, electron beam ( EB) cure systems can use opaque coatings and are available for use in the flat wood paneling industry. Over 99 percent reduction can be achieved by using EB cure coatings, but the costs of both the cure system and coatings themselves limit the applicability of this technique at this time. 1 3. Add On Controls For applications where performance requirements or other needs dictate the use of high VOC coatings, flat wood paneling coaters can employ add on controls to reduce their VOC emissions. Currently, an overall control and capture efficiency of 90 percent is a widely accepted and readily available technique.

4. Work Practices Another effective means to reduce VOC emissions associated with flat wood paneling coatings is the implementation of work practice standards. Work practice standards that have proven particularly effective include: ( 1) frequent visual inspections for all equipment used to transfer or apply coatings, adhesives, or organic solvents; ( 2) cleaning and wash off solvent accounting system; ( 3) collecting and containing all VOCs when cleaning coating lines and spray guns; and ( 4) using low VOC or low vapor pressure cleaning materials.

To provide structure and consistency to their work practices, facilities can develop and implement a work practice plan. Such a plan is a compliance option under the 2003 NESHAP and is equally applicable to VOC emissions. The work practice plan is a proven and traditional approach for cleaning that is easily adopted and managed by various industries, including flat wood paneling coatings. The work practice plan sets forth the steps to be taken to ensure that work practices are implemented properly and that VOC emissions are minimized from mixing operations, storage tanks and other DRAFT CTG for Flat Wood Paneling, Docket No. EPA HQ OAR 2006 0583 9 containers, and handling operations for coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials.

B. The 1978 CTG and Existing State and Local Regulatory Approaches 1. Summary of the 1978 Flat Wood Paneling CTG Document The 1978 CTG recommends emission limits for flat wood paneling surface coating operations. Table 1 summarizes these limits, which are expressed in pounds of VOC emitted per 1,000 square feet ( lb VOC/ 1,000 ft2) of coated surface. These limits could be achieved by either using coatings with VOC contents low enough to achieve these limits during application, or by reducing the amount of VOCs emitted through the use of add on controls. Because the 1978 RACT recommended emission limit could be met by using coatings with sufficiently low VOC content to meet the limit, Table 1 also presents the equivalent VOC coating limit expressed as pounds of VOC per gallon of coating, less water and exempt compounds ( lb VOC/ gal water exempt compounds). The pounds of VOC per gallon of coating is the VOC content of a coating, taking into account such factors as coating coverage rate and solids content, that is expected to achieve the emission limitation ( lb VOC/ 1,000 ft2). The equivalent coating limit is especially useful in the context of this draft CTG, because it allows for comparison between the 1978 RACT recommended limit and the current Placer County and South Coast requirements discussed later in this section.

Table 1. 1978 RACT Limits for Factory Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling Product Emission rate limit, pound VOC per 1000 square feet coated surface ( lb VOC/ 1,000 ft2) Equivalent coating limit, pound VOC per gallon of coating , less water and less exempt compounds ( lb VOC/ gal water exempt compounds)

Printed interior wall panels made of hardwood plywood and thin particleboard 6.0 2.5 Natural finish hardwood plywood panels 12.0 3.3 Class II hardboard panels 10.0 3.6 As indicated in Table 1, the 1978 CTG recommends emission limits for only three categories of flat wood paneling products. Other significant categories of factory finished flat wood paneling products, exterior siding, and tileboard, were not reviewed during preparation of the 1978 CTG. Consequently, emission limits for these product categories were not recommended in that document.

2. Summary of Existing State and Local VOC Requirements At least 28 State and local jurisdictions have regulations that control VOC emissions from surface coating operations that include flat wood paneling. Most of these regulations are general surface coating rules; a few are specific to flat wood paneling. DRAFT CTG for Flat Wood Paneling, Docket No. EPA HQ OAR 2006 0583 10 Appendix B lists the jurisdictions where the 24 facilities that meet the applicability criterion in this draft CTG are located.

Almost all of the jurisdictions that specifically address flat wood paneling have based their rules on the 1978 CTG. However, there are two jurisdictions in California that have requirements specific to flat wood paneling that go beyond the 1978 CTG. In Placer County, VOC emissions from flat wood paneling operations in a nonattainment area are limited to 250 g VOC/ l ( 2.1 lb VOC/ gal) of coating ( excluding water and exempt compounds) or the overall control device efficiency must be at least 90 percent. ( See Appendix B).

The South Coast rule defines flat wood paneling as " interior wood panels and exterior wood siding, which include, by way of illustration and not limitation, redwood, cedar or plywood stocks, plywood panels, particle boards, composition hard boards, and any other panels or siding constructed of solid wood or a wood containing product." The emissions limit established by the South Coast rule is identical to the emission limit established by Placer County, and also covers exterior siding, which the Placer County rule does not.

VI. Recommended Control Options Based on a review of the recommendations in the 1978 CTG, the current State and local requirements discussed above, and the 2003 NESHAP, we recommend emission limits for the inks, coatings and adhesives used by the flat wood paneling coating facilities and work practices for cleaning materials used.

The recommended emission limits for inks, coatings, and adhesives can be achieved either by using materials with VOC contents low enough to achieve the limits during application, or by reducing the amount of VOC emitted through the use of add on controls. There are two alternative limits recommended for the use of low VOC inks, coatings and adhesives. These limits are expressed in different units, but are equivalent. Table 2 summarizes the VOC emission limits recommended in this draft CTG.

A. Emissions Limit based on Low VOC Coatings for Inks, Coatings and Adhesives The low VOC materials recommendation for inks, coatings and adhesives include an emissions limit of 250 g VOC/ l ( 2.1 lb VOC/ gal) of material ( minus water and exempt compounds). An equivalent limit, expressed as units of weight of VOC per volume of solids in all coatings would is 350 grams of VOC per liter solids ( 2.9 lb of VOC per gal of solids). The default VOC density used for making this conversion was 7.36 lb/ gal ( 0.88 kg/ liter).

B. Optional Add On Controls for Inks, Coatings and Adhesives DRAFT CTG for Flat Wood Paneling, Docket No. EPA HQ OAR 2006 0583 11 Should performance requirements or other needs dictate the use of higher VOC coatings than specified above, a facility could choose to use add on control equipment to meet an overall control efficiency of 90 percent. Add on devices include oxidizers and solvent recovery systems, which coupled with their attendant systems to capture the VOC being released at the affected facilities, can achieve an overall control efficiency of 90 percent. This control option, like the low VOC material option noted above, applies to surface coatings, inks, and adhesives applied to all types of flat wood paneling.

C. Work Practices The draft CTG also recommends work practices for use in all flat wood paneling coating facilities meeting the applicability threshold noted above. We recommend that the work practice plan include steps to ensure that VOC emissions are minimized from mixing operations, storage tanks and other containers, and handling operations for coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials. Examples of work practice standards include: storing all VOC coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials in closed containers, minimizing spills of VOC containing coatings, thinners, cleaning up spills immediately, conveying any coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials in closed containers or pipes, closing mixing vessels which contain VOC coatings and other materials except when specifically in use, and minimizing emissions of VOC during cleaning of storage, mixing, and conveying equipment.

Table 2. Recommended Emission Limits for Flat Wood Paneling Coating Operations Should Meet One of These Emission Limits: Surface Coatings, Inks, or Adhesives Applied to the Following Flat Wood Paneling Categories lb VOC per gallon material ( grams VOC per liter material) [ excluding water and exempt compounds ] lb VOC per gallon solids ( grams VOC per liter solids) Overall Control Efficiency Using an Add On Control Device:

Printed interior panels made of hardwood, plywood, or thin particleboard 2.1 ( 250) 2.9 ( 350) 90%

Natural finish hardwood plywood panels 2.1 ( 250) 2.9 ( 350) 90%

Class II finishes on hardboard panels 2.1 ( 250) 2.9 ( 350) 90% Tileboard 2.1 ( 250) 2.9 ( 350) 90% Exterior siding 2.1 ( 250) 2.9 ( 350) 90% * We also recommend that those facilities that meet the applicability threshold noted above follow work practice standards.

VII. Cost Effectiveness of Recommended Control Options Cost effectiveness estimates were determined based on South Coast district studies and on studies performed by EPA during development of the 2003 NESHAP. DRAFT CTG for Flat Wood Paneling, Docket No. EPA HQ OAR 2006 0583 12 Effective January 1, 2000, a new VOC limit was proposed for flat wood paneling facilities in the South Coast Air Quality Management District of California. The new regulation reduced the allowable VOC content for inks from 2.5 pounds per gallon ( 300 grams per liter) to 2.1 pounds per gallon ( 250 grams per liter) and reduced the allowable VOC content for exterior siding coatings from 2.9 pounds per gallon ( 350 grams per liter) to 2.1 pounds per gallon ( 250 grams per liter). At the time of proposal of the South Coast rule, there were two facilities in the district that would be affected by the regulation changes. One facility manufactured interior paneling and the other manufactured exterior siding. Only the exterior siding facility was not in compliance with the new limits. As part of the South Coast proposal, a cost effectiveness analysis was performed for the facility. It was determined that the facility could switch to two lower VOC stains for an annual cost of $ 3,200 and reduce VOC emissions by 2,900 pounds per year ( 1.45 tons per year), which has a cost effectiveness of approximately $ 2,200/ ton in 2000 dollars.

The surface coating of wood building products NESHAP applies to various operations, including flat wood paneling coatings. The NESHAP sets requirements for emissions of hazardous air pollutants ( HAP) and includes as a compliance option the use of low HAP materials. The majority of organic HAP are VOCs. In developing the NESHAP, EPA estimated in 1998 dollars, the cost effectiveness of using low HAP materials. The cost of compliance for facilities in the interior wall paneling and tileboard category was estimated to be $ 2.59 million and result in VOC reductions of 480 tons ($ 1,600 per ton of VOC). The cost of compliance for six facilities in the exterior siding subcategory was estimated to be $ 760,000 and result in VOC reductions of 690 tons ($ 3,700 per ton of VOC) in 1998 dollars. 7 Using the Marshall and Swift Index, the costs in 1999 and 1998 dollars, respectively, were scaled to estimate 2005 dollars. The resulting cost effectiveness estimate, in 2005 dollars, for the California flat wood paneling facility that manufactures exterior siding is $ 2,600 per ton of VOC. Escalating the NESHAP figures to 2005 dollars, the cost effectiveness is $ 4,400 per ton of VOC for exterior siding and $ 1,900 per ton of VOC for interior paneling/ tileboard.

Due to higher estimated cost for a given amount of emission reductions from exterior siding, and because exterior siding is not covered by the 1978 CTG, EPA solicits comments on whether it is appropriate to exclude exterior siding from applicability of the draft CTG.

VIII. References 1. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Sources  Volume VII: Factory Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling. Publication No. EPA 450/ 2 78 032. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. June 1978.

2. Guidance to State and Local Agencies in Preparing Regulations to Control Volatile Organic Compounds from Ten Stationary Source Categories. EPA 450 DRAFT CTG for Flat Wood Paneling, Docket No. EPA HQ OAR 2006 0583 13 2 79 004. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. September 1979.

3. Placer County ( California) Air Quality Management District Rule 238, Factory Coating of Flat Wood Paneling. Amended August 14, 1997.

4. 1972 Census of Manufacturers, United States Bureau of Census, Vol. II, Industry Statistics, Part I. SIC 20 26, 2431, 2435, 2436, 2493, 2496 5. Flat wood Paneling Surface Coating Plants. In: Directory of Volatile Organic Compound Sources Covered by Reasonably Available Control Technology ( RACT) Requirements, Volume II: Group II RACT Categories, EPA 450/ 4 81 0075, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. February 1981.

6. Control Techniques for Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Stationary Sources. Publication No. EPA 453/ R 92 018. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. December 1992.

7. Background Information Document for NESHAP for the Wood Building Products ( Surface Coating Industry). EPA 453/ R00 003. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. May 2001. DRAFT CTG for Flat Wood Paneling, Docket No. EPA HQ OAR 2006 0583 14 Appendix A DRAFT CTG for Flat Wood Paneling, Docket No. EPA HQ OAR 2006 0583 15 Appendix B Flat wood Paneling Coating Facilities in Current Nonattainment Areas and Associated State or Local Requirements ( Based on 2002 NEI)

Ozone Nonattainment Area Number of Facilities Product Applicability Applicable State Emission Limit Alternative Control Device Limits Placer County ( California) 1 1978 CTG Does not include Exterior Siding < 2.1 lb VOC per gallon of coating ( excluding water) Overall control efficiency of 90%

Michigan 1 Interior paneling.

Does not include exterior siding, cabinetry, furniture or tileboard. 1978 CTG Limits 1978 CTG Limits North Carolina 1 1978 CTG Does not include Exterior Siding and tileboard. 1978 CTG Limits 1978 CTG Limits Ohio 1 No rule specific to flat wood, wood building products or tileboard. 1978 CTG Limits 1978 CTG Limits South Carolina 1 Wood construction products for interior paneling Does not exclude exterior siding and tileboard 1978 CTG Limits 1978 CTG Limits Texas 2 Interior paneling and tileboard Not applicable to exterior siding 1978 CTG Limits 1978 CTG Limits Virginia 1 Interior panels Does not exclude exterior siding and tileboard 1978 CTG Limits 1978 CTG Limits Indiana 3 Interior panels Not applicable to exterior siding and tileboard. 1978 CTG Limits 1978 CTG Limits Tennessee 1 Interior paneling Not applicable to exterior siding and tileboard. 1978 CTG Limits 1978 CTG Limits Illinois 1 None None None Pennsylvania 8 None None None New Hampshire 2 None None None Wisconsin 1 1978 CTG Limits Not applicable to exterior siding and tileboard. 1978 CTG Limits 1978 CTG Limits


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 18 (Friday, January 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3864-3866]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01400]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0197]

Hours of Service of Drivers: National Asphalt Pavement
Association, Inc.; Application for Exemptions

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; grant of application for
exemptions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to grant the National Asphalt
Pavement Association, (Inc.) (NAPA) request for exemptions from two
requirements of the hours-of-service (HOS) regulations for all drivers
of certain commercial motor vehicles (CMVs): (1) The 30-minute rest
break provision and (2) the requirement that short-haul drivers
utilizing the record of duty status (RODS) exception return to their
work-reporting location within 12 hours of coming on duty. The first
exemption will enable drivers engaged in the transportation of asphalt
and related materials to use 30 minutes or more of on-duty ``waiting
time'' to satisfy the requirement for the 30-minute rest break,
provided they do not perform any other work during the break. The
second exemption will allow these drivers to use the short-haul
exception but return to their work-reporting location within 14 hours
instead of the usual 12 hours.

DATES: This exemption is applicable January 26, 2018 and expires
January 25, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver
and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email: [email protected]. If you
have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact
Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to www.regulations.gov and insert
the docket number, FMCSA-2017-0197, in the ``Keyword'' box and click
``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose
the document to review. If you do not have access to the internet, you
may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility
in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) 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.
    The Agency 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 reasons
for denying or granting the application and, if granted, the name of
the person or class of persons receiving the exemption, and the
regulatory provision from which the exemption is granted. The notice
must also specify the effective period (up to 5 years) and explain the
terms and conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed (49
CFR 381.300(b)).

III. Request for Exemptions

    NAPA seeks two exemptions for all drivers transporting asphalt and
related materials and equipment from the HOS 30-minute rest break
provision in 49 CFR 395.3(a)(3)(ii) and the restriction of the RODS
exception for short-haul operations available to drivers who return to
their normal work-reporting location within 12 hours [49 CFR
395.1(e)(1)(ii)(A)].
    NAPA requested the first exemption from the HOS rest break
provision to allow drivers engaged in the transportation of asphalt and
related materials to use 30 minutes or more of on-duty ``waiting time''
to satisfy the requirement for the 30-minute rest break, provided they
do not perform any other work during the break. According to NAPA,
asphalt is a highly perishable product. It is loaded into the delivery
truck at 280-300 degrees Fahrenheit and begins to cool immediately. If
the asphalt is not delivered and placed on the paving site within two
hours, the product hardens and is no longer viscous enough to be
useable. Drivers of asphalt delivery vehicles typically drive
approximately one-third of their workday; the rest of their day is
spent waiting to load or unload their vehicles and in other non-driving
duties such as paperwork and cleaning their trucks after each load.
    NAPA requested the second exemption to allow some drivers to use
the short-haul RODS exception but with a 14-hour duty period instead of
12 hours. NAPA advises that while some short-haul drivers will be able
to take advantange of the exception from the 30-minute break, other
drivers are often required to be on duty more than 12 hours in a day
and therefore are not eligible to use the short-haul exception.
    NAPA mentioned that drivers of ready-mixed concrete delivery
vehicles were granted an exemption from the minimum 30-minute rest
break provision.\1\ NAPA states that ``the same reasoning supporting
the exemptions from the 30-minute break time rule and allowing a 14-
hour daily on duty-period for drivers of ready-mixed concrete vehicles
applies to drivers engaged in the transportation of asphalt and related
materials and equipment. Both are perishable products that are not
useable if they are not dropped and spread within a brief delivery
window. Because of this short delivery window, the routes from the
production facility to the delivery site for both products are limited
to less than 40 miles, and the time spent actually driving a CMV is
typically only a few hours per day. Thus in both cases, the drivers do
not face the same fatigue factors as drivers of long-haul trucks, and
therefore do not pose the same risk of a fatigue-related accident as
long-haul drivers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ More precisely, section 5521 of the Fixing America's Surface
Transportation (FAST) Act, exempts a ``driver of a ready mixed
concrete delivery vehicle'' from the reporting, recordkeeping, or
documentation requirements under the hours-of-service regulations if
the driver operates within a 100 air-mile radius of his/her normal
work reporting location, returns to the work reporting location and
is released within 14 hours, and meets certain other requirements
[Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1559, Dec. 4, 2015, codified at 49
U.S.C. 31502(f)]. In addition, FMCSA granted drivers of ready mixed
concrete trucks an exemption from the 30-minute break requirement
[80 FR 17819, April 2, 2015], which section 5206(b)(1)(A) of the
FAST Act required to be made permanent [129 Stat. 1312, 1537].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NAPA requested that the operation of certain vehicles and equipment
(Water Truck, Tack (tar) Distributor, Equipment Hauler and Pick-Sweeper
(Street Sweeper)) be included in the definition of ``transportation of
asphalt and related materials and equipment'' for purposes of these
exemptions.
    NAPA stated in its application that drivers would remain subject to
the HOS regulations and would receive sufficient rest due to the nature
of their operations that limit driving to an average of six to seven
hours per day or less during the paving season. NAPA believes that
granting these exemptions would achieve the same level of safety
provided by the two HOS rules. The requested exemptions are for 5 years
with renewals. A copy of NAPA's application for exemptions is available
for review in the docket for this notice.

V. Public Comments

    On September 7, 2017, FMCSA published notice of this application
and requested public comment (82 FR 42415). The Agency received 70
comments representing individuals and various transportation interests
in response to the proposed exemptions. The majority of the respondents
in support of the requested exemptions were companies, associations,
and individuals affiliated with the asphalt industry.
    For example, Nu Rock Asphalt Coatings supported the exemptions and
stated, ``[i]t seems it would be advantageous for those involved in
asphalt work to have HOS regulations in line with those found in the
ready-mix concrete business. We feel this could be done without
compromising safety.''
    Wiregrass Construction wrote, ``[s]ince the ready-mix industry
parallels the asphalt industry in terms of operational limitations with
highly perishable, nonhazardous product, it seems perfectly logical
that the asphalt industry should be subject to the same exemption from
the 30 minute break requirement and 12 hour limit on Short Haul
Exception.''
    NAPA was among the many respondents commenting about its
application and wrote to specifically clarify the record and provide
additional comment concerning its application. NAPA explained that
their petition for relief from the specific HOS requirements were not
restricted to NAPA members and also provided additional rationale to
support the need for both exemptions.
    Four respondents made comments about the regulations but took no
position on the application. One individual, Mr. Richard Elliott,
wrote, ``I do not oppose them using wait time in line as the 30 minute
rest period but I do oppose extending any duty hours or exceptions.''
    An anonymous respondent and the Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety (Advocates) opposed the requested exemptions. Advocates provided
several reasons for not granting the exemptions. According to
Advocates, ``the Application seeks to exempt an untold number of motor
cariers and drivers from safety regulations and provides no
justification for the exemptions requested.''

VI. FMCSA Decision

    FMCSA has evaluated NAPA's application and the public comments and
decided to grant the exemptions. The Agency believes that all drivers
transporting asphalt and related materials and equipment will likely
achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than, the
level of safety achieved without the exemption [49 CFR 381.305(a)].
    The first exemption from the HOS 30-minute break provision will
allow drivers engaged in the transportation of asphalt and related
materials to use 30 minutes or more of on-duty ``waiting

time'' to satisfy the requirement for the 30-minute rest break,
provided they do not perform any other work during the break. The
second exemption will allow drivers to use the short-haul RODS
exception but with a 14-hour duty period instead of 12 hours.

VII. Terms and Conditions for the Exemption

     Drivers must have a copy of this notice or equivalent
signed FMCSA exemption document in their possession while operating
under the terms of the exemptions. The exemption document must be
presented to law enforcement officials upon request.
     Drivers must return to the work reporting location and be
released from work within 14 consecutive hours.

Preemption

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), during the period these
exemptions are in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation
that conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect
to a firm or person operating under the exemptions.

Notification to FMCSA

    Exempt motor carriers must notify FMCSA within 5 business days of
any accident (as defined in 49 CFR 390.5), involving any of its CMVs
operating under the terms of the exemptions. The notification must
include the following information:
    (a) Name of the exemption: ``NAPA''
    (b) Name of the operating motor carrier,
    (c) Date of the accident,
    (d) City or town, and State, in which the accident occurred, or
closest to the accident scene,
    (e) Driver's name and license number,
    (f) Vehicle number and State license number,
    (g) Number of individuals suffering physical injury,
    (h) Number of fatalities,
    (i) The police-reported cause of the accident,
    (j) Whether the driver was cited for violation of any traffic laws,
motor carrier safety regulations, and
    (k) The driver's total driving time and total on-duty time period
prior to the accident.
    Reports filed under this provision shall be emailed to
[email protected]

Termination

    FMCSA does not believe the drivers covered by this exemption will
experience any deterioration of their safety record.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any or all of these motor carriers are not
achieving the requisite statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any information submitted and,
if safety is being compromised or if the continuation of the exemptions
are inconsistent with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) and 31136(e), FMCSA will
immediately take steps to revoke the exemptions of the company or
companies and drivers in question.

    Issued on: January 19, 2018.
Cathy F. Gautreaux,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-01400 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P