[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 57 (Monday, March 25, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17875-17882]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06760]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 383 and 384

[Docket No. FMCSA-2007-27659]
RIN 2126-AB59

Commercial Driver's License Testing and Commercial Learner's
Permit Standards

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA amends its May 9, 2011, final rule in response to
certain petitions for reconsideration. The 2011 final rule amended the
commercial driver's license (CDL) knowledge and skills testing
standards and established new minimum Federal standards for States to
issue the commercial learner's permit (CLP). The Agency received 34
petitions for reconsideration that covered a wide range of issues.
FMCSA granted or denied each of these petitions, by orders available in
the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice. Today's final
rule addresses the petitions that were granted.

DATES: This final rule is effective on April 24, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Redmond, Office of Safety
Programs, Commercial Driver's License Division, telephone (202) 366-
5014 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Office hours are from 8:00 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m. If you have questions on the docket, call Ms. Barbara
Hairston, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Legal Basis

    This rule is based on the same authority as FMCSA's final rule on
``Commercial Driver's License Testing and Commercial Learner's Permit
Standards'' published on May 9, 2011 [76 FR 26854]; for a complete
discussion of that authority, see the Legal Basis section of the 2011
rule [76 FR at 26855].
    Briefly, this rule implements or revises certain provisions of the
Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA), as amended [49
U.S.C. chapter 313]; the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (MCSA), as
amended [49 U.S.C. 31136]; and the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (MCA) [49
U.S.C. 31502(b)]. The rule also carries out certain provisions of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) [Pub. L. 105-
178, 112 Stat. 107, June 9, 1998]; the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)
[Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, Aug. 10, 2005]; and the Security and
Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act) [Pub. L. 109-
347, 120 Stat. 1884, Oct. 13, 2006].
    The CMVSA established the commercial driver's license (CDL) and
drug and alcohol testing programs. The MCSA directed FMCSA to ensure
that its safety regulations meet certain general objectives. That
statute also underlies most of FMCSA's safety regulations including, as
supplemental authority, those related to the CDL program. The MCSA
inaugurated Federal regulation of motor carrier safety and provided
broad authority over for-hire and private motor carriers.
    Sec. 4019 of TEA-21 required the Department of Transportation (DOT)
to determine whether the CDL testing system accurately measures the
knowledge and skills needed to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
and, if not, to correct the system. Sec. 4122 of SAFETEA-LU required
FMCSA to prescribe regulations on minimum uniform standards for the
issuance of commercial learner's permits (CLPs), as it had already done
for CDLs. Sec. 703 of the SAFE Port Act required the Secretary of
Transportation to carry out recommendations issued by the DOT's Office
of Inspector General (OIG) in 2002, 2004, and 2006 concerning
performance-oriented requirements for English language proficiency,
verification of the legal status of commercial drivers, and fraud-
reduction in the CDL program. The 2011 final rule implemented all of
these mandates.

    The Agency received 34 petitions seeking reconsideration of various
elements of the 2011 rule. FMCSA is adopting this rule without
additional notice and opportunity for comment because the issues raised
by petitioners have already been subjected to the full range of notice
and comment, starting with the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in
2008 [73 FR 19282, April 9, 2008]. Many parties submitted comments on
the NPRM; the Agency responded at length in the preamble to the 2011
rule. A number of the petitions for reconsideration repeated the
comments and suggestions submitted to the Agency in response to the
2008 NPRM. However, some of the petitions included additional analyses
and data such that FMCSA is persuaded to adopt changes to the 2011
final rule. These changes include non-substantive changes to clarify
the Agency's intent and to resolve confusion over the rule's
requirements. The changes also include amendments to lessen the
regulatory burden the 2011 rule placed on both public and private
entities where such changes fall within the scope of or are the logical
outgrowth of the 2008 NPRM. One final change expands the amount of time
States have to come into compliance with the new requirements because
of changes made in today's final rule. Under these circumstances, a
further round of notice and comment would serve no purpose and is not
required by the Administrative Procedure Act.

II. Background

    On April 9, 2008, FMCSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) to amend the CDL knowledge and skills testing standards and
establish new minimum Federal standards for States to issue the
commercial learner's permit (CLP) (73 FR 19282). On May 9, 2011, FMCSA
issued a final rule implementing these changes. In response to the
final rule, FMCSA received 34 petitions for reconsideration. FMCSA has
decided to publish a new final rule amending several provisions of the
May 9, 2011 rule.
    For additional background information, please see the Background
section of the May 9, 2011 final rule (76 FR 26854).

III. Discussion of the Petitions for Reconsideration

    After careful review, FMCSA decided to grant some petitions, in
whole or in part, and deny others. As a result, FMCSA is publishing a
new final rule modifying seven provisions of the May 2011 final rule.
The grant and denial orders are available in this rulemaking docket,
referenced at the beginning of this notice.
    In this final rule, FMCSA modifies the following provisions, which
granted, in whole or in part, are in response to the petitions for
reconsideration:
    1. State Procedures--49 CFR 383.73(a)(2)(vi), (b)(6), (c)(7),
(d)(7), and (e)(5)
    2. Requiring Two Employees To Verify Documents--49 CFR 383.73(m)
    3. Prohibiting Training Schools From Administering Skills Tests--49
CFR 383.75(a)(7)
    4. Bonding Requirements--49 CFR 383.75(a)(8)(v)
    5. Prohibiting States From Using a Photo on the CLP--49 CFR
383.153(b)(1) and 384.227
    6. Requiring Annual Background Checks for Skills Test Examiners--49
CFR 384.228(h)
    7. Although FMCSA initially denied petitions seeking to delay the
May 2011 final rule's compliance date, FMCSA reverses that decision and
modifies the following additional provision: Substantial compliance--
general requirements--49 CFR 384.301(f). FMCSA denied the remaining
issues submitted for reconsideration.

State Procedures--49 CFR 383.73(a)(2)(vi), (b)(6), (c)(7), (d)(7), and
(e)(5)

    Sections 383.73(b)(6) and 383.73(c)(7) require States to check for
legal presence and domicile, but provide for an exception stating that
this only needs to be done once after July 8, 2011, provided that a
notation is made on an individual's record. Some States requested that
the Agency extend this exception to renewals and upgrades.
    Sections 383.73(b)(6) and 383.73(c)(7) state that the exception to
checking for legal presence and domicile applies to initial issuances,
transfers, and renewals; however, the exception does not appear in
Sec.  383.73(d)(7), which governs renewals. In addition, Sec.  383.73
does not specify whether the exception applies to upgrades, which are
governed by Sec.  383.73(e)(5). The Agency acknowledges that the
exception was not written as the Agency intended. As a result, FMCSA
amends Sec. Sec.  383.73(b)(6), 383.73(c)(7), 383.73(d)(7), and
383.73(e)(5) to clarify that the exception covers all transactions,
whether initial issuance, transfer, renewal, or upgrade, made after
July 8, 2011.

Requiring Two Employees To Verify Documents--49 CFR 383.73(m)

    Section 383.73(m) requires that two State Driver's Licensing Agency
(SDLA) staff members verify CLP and CDL applicants' test scores,
completed application forms, and documents to prove legal presence. For
SDLA offices with only one staff member on duty, the documents must be
verified by a supervisor before issuance. Alternatively, when the
supervisor is not available, copies must be made of the documents used
to prove legal presence and domicile so that a supervisor can verify
them along with the completed application within one business day of
issuance of a CLP or CDL. A number of States interpreted Sec.
383.73(m) to require two employees to verify each document. They
requested reconsideration, stating that the perceived requirement would
burden existing resources and increase SDLA workload at a time when
State agencies are experiencing reduced funding and resources. In
addition, one State asked for clarification of how this provision
affects central-issuance States.
    FMCSA did not intend to create a redundant process under which two
SDLA employees must verify each document a particular driver-applicant
presents. Rather, FMCSA intended that more than one SDLA employee
participate substantively in the licensing process. For example, one
person might review the legal presence and other documentation the
driver presents, while a second SDLA employee would conduct the
required driving record check for driving violations, take the
applicant's photograph, and issue the license. Moreover, the two
employees need not work in the same location. For a central-issuance
State, having one employee accept documents at the point of service and
another verify some or all of them at the central-issuance facility
would satisfy the requirements of this section. Similarly, for SDLA
offices with only one staff member on duty, having a supervisor verify
some or all of the documents within one business day of issuance of a
CLP or CDL would satisfy the requirements of this section.
    FMCSA amends Sec.  383.73(m) to clarify that FMCSA requires two
people to be substantively involved in the license issuance process,
but does not require that two people verify each document.

Prohibiting Training Schools From Administering Skills Tests--49 CFR
383.75(a)(7)

    Section 383.75(a)(7) prohibits CDL training schools from skills
testing applicants they train, except if there is no skills testing
alternative within 50 miles of the school and the same examiner does
not train and test the same student applicant. The FMCSA

received petitions requesting reconsideration on the grounds that the
provision was too restrictive and would create hardship for States,
training schools, and motor carriers.
    FMCSA acknowledges the hardship and unintended consequences that
this provision could cause for States, schools, and aspiring CDL
holders. FMCSA believes, however, that prohibiting individual examiners
from administering skills tests to student applicants they have trained
will further the Agency's and Congress's fraud-prevention objectives.
Accordingly, FMCSA amends Sec.  383.75(a)(7) to provide that CDL
training schools may test their own student applicants only so long as
an individual examiner does not administer the skills test to drivers
he or she has trained.

Bonding Requirements--49 CFR 383.75(a)(8)(v)

    Section 383.75(a)(8)(v) requires third party CDL testers to
maintain bonds in an amount sufficient to pay for re-testing of drivers
if required due to examiners engaging in fraudulent activities related
to skills testing. A number of States requested that FMCSA reconsider
this section to require bonding to be at the State's discretion or only
apply to non-governmental entities.
    As explained in the May 2011 rule, FMCSA is aware of a number of
third party testers whose examiners engaged in fraudulent activities.
As a result, a number of CDL holders were required to be re-tested,
causing States and individuals to incur additional expenses. FMCSA
implemented this provision to ensure that, in the event examiners are
involved in fraudulent activities related to skills testing, States or
individuals would have an opportunity to recoup expenses related to re-
testing.
    FMCSA acknowledges that a number of third-party testers are
governmental entities performing testing services under inter-agency or
other agreements. FMCSA believes there is a lower risk associated with
locating and recouping expenses from governmental entities than from
private third-party testers. Moreover, FMCSA is aware that many States
normally do not require their own political subdivisions and agencies,
either at the State or local level, to obtain bonds. Accordingly, FMCSA
amends Sec.  383.75(a)(8)(v) to eliminate the bond requirement for
governmental entities.

Prohibiting States From Using a Photo on the CLP--49 CFR 383.153(b)(1)
and 384.227

    Section 383.153(b)(1) prohibits States from placing a digital color
image or photograph or black and white laser engraved photograph or
other visual representation of the driver on the CLP. FMCSA received
petitions requesting reconsideration on the grounds that prohibiting
the inclusion of a digital color image or photograph or black and white
laser engraved photograph or other visual representation of the driver
would cause economic harm to the States and/or make the CLP less
secure.
    FMCSA acknowledges that many, but not all, States have invested in
technologies to develop secure CLPs that may or may not include a
digital color image or photograph or black and white laser engraved
photograph or other visual representation of the driver. Other
provisions of this rule establish that the CLP is a two-part license
comprised of the CLP document and the underlying CDL or non-CDL, and
that the CLP document must be presented with the underlying CDL or non-
CDL to be valid. Moreover, the CLP document will have the same driver's
license number as the underlying CDL or non-CDL as well as language
stating the two-part nature of the document, making this relationship
clear. Accordingly, to accommodate the States' requests for flexibility
in determining whether to include a photograph of the driver on the
CLP, FMCSA amends Sec.  383.153(b)(1) to make the reference to a
digital color image or photograph or black and white laser engraved
photograph of the driver permissive rather than prohibited. The
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), however, objected to having a
State issue two photograph IDs to a single person, stating it would
violate the one driver/one license/one record principle. In fact, the
CLP and the underlying license constitute a single document with
(potentially) two photographs. FMCSA leaves the determination up to the
State to include a photo on the CLP, for an extra security measure when
processing a CDL request.
    FMCSA also amends section 384.227 to reflect the permissive
inclusion of a photograph on the CLP.

Requiring Annual Background Checks for Skills Test Examiners--49 CFR
384.228(h)

    Section 384.228(h) requires States to conduct annual background
checks on all test examiners. Some States petitioned for
reconsideration of this requirement on the grounds that annual checks
are burdensome.
    On further consideration, FMCSA agrees that an annual background
check of 2,200 skills test examiners is unnecessarily burdensome.
Accordingly, FMCSA amends Sec.  384.228(h) to require States to perform
background checks on test examiners only at the time of hiring.

Substantial Compliance--General Requirements--49 CFR 384.301(f)

    Section 384.301(f) establishes the date by which all States must
come into substantial compliance with the provisions of the May 2011
and today's final rules. FMCSA received petitions for reconsideration
requesting an extension of the May 2011 final rule, so that the States
would have sufficient time to implement the requirements established in
that rule. Although FMCSA believes that a three year implementation
period is generally sufficient, the Agency recognizes that many States
have been waiting for today's final rule to implement changes to those
provisions for which the Agency has granted petitions for
reconsideration. As a result, and in consideration of the changes made
in today's final rule, the Agency has extended the compliance date for
the changes established in the May 2011 and today's final rules by one
year, to July 8, 2015.

Technical Corrections

    In addition to addressing the issues raised in the petitions for
reconsideration, FMCSA is also adopting the following technical
corrections in this final rule:
     In Sec.  383.73(f)(2)(ii), an incorrect cross reference to
Sec.  383.153(b) is changed to Sec.  383.153(c).
     The preamble to the 2011 final rule made it clear that
CLPs cannot be ``transferred'' from one State to another State. The
regulatory language, however, did not adequately reflect that decision.
The following sections are therefore revised to include a prohibition
on transfer of CLPs: Sec.  383.73, paragraphs (a)(2)(vi), (b)(6),
(c)(7), (d)(7), (e)(5) and (m); Sec.  383.153(h); Sec.  384.105,
definition of ``Issue and Issuance;'' Sec.  384.227, and Sec.
384.405(b)(1).

IV. Regulatory Analyses

E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review and DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures as Supplemented by E.O. 13563)

    FMCSA has determined this final rule is not a significant
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order

(E.O.) 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011), and is also not significant within the meaning of DOT regulatory
policies and procedures (DOT Order 2100.5 dated May 22, 1980; 44 FR
11034, February 26, 1979). The estimated cost of the final rule is not
expected to exceed the $100 million annual threshold for economic
significance. The Agency expects the final rule to generate cost
savings in the form of reduced annual paperwork burden hours compared
to the estimates in the 2011 final rule. The provisions revised in this
rule are intended to increase fraud reduction, improve safety, and
facilitate entrance into the commercial motor vehicle (CMV) driver
occupations. Many of the provisions of this rule impose minimal cost on
the States or industry members, either because many States are already
complying with the requirements contained in the May 2011 final rule or
because the requirements have minimal impact on the SDLA or industry
operations or procedures.
    FMCSA emphasizes that this rule does not change requirements
concerning State procedures in CDL processing or impose additional
burden hours or costs. The Agency amends several sections of the
current regulations in 49 CFR Sec. Sec.  383.73(a)(2)(vi), (b)(6),
(c)(7), (d)(7), and (e)(5) to cover all transactions (initial issuance,
transfer, renewal, or upgrades). Likewise, bonding requirements for
third party testers as written in 49 CFR Sec.  383.75(a)(8)(v) remain
intact, the only difference being that a third party tester that is a
government entity is no longer required to maintain a bond.
    FMCSA recognized the potential loss of revenue from reduced
enrollment when it prohibited training schools from administering
skills tests to their own student applicants. This is even more evident
in smaller training programs in rural areas. These training schools may
be 100 miles or more from the nearest tester unaffiliated with the
school, who would be available to test the school's drivers. Amending
this section will allow CDL training schools to test their students,
yet prohibit a skills test examiner who is also a skills instructor
from administering a skills test to an applicant who received skills
training from that examiner. The Agency does not know the number or
location of training programs that conduct skills testing and therefore
cannot produce a reasonable estimate of the total cost associated with
this exclusion on skills testing.
    The SAFE Port Act mandated that the Agency adopt certain
regulations implementing the DOT Office of Inspector General's (OIG)
anti-fraud recommendations. Applying these mandates required the Agency
to adopt specific measures to prevent fraud in the CDL system. One of
the measures required by the Agency is that CLP documentation be
presented simultaneously with the underlying CDL or non-CDL to be
valid.
    The States will have the discretion to place a digital photograph
on the CLP (see Sec.  383.153(b)(1) and Sec.  384.227); most SDLAs
currently keep a digital photograph on file for all drivers they
license.
    FMCSA amends Sec.  383.73(m) to clarify that FMCSA requires two
people to be involved in the license issuance process, but does not
require that two people verify each document. Two SDLA staff members
can participate independently in the licensing process for a CLP/CDL.
For example, one person might review the legal presence and other
documentation the driver presents, while a second SDLA employee would
view the driving record for violations, take the applicant's photo, and
issue the license. Also, the two employees are not required to work in
the same duty location. For a central-issuance State, having one
employee accept documents at the point of service and another verify
some or all of them at the central-issuance facility would satisfy the
requirements of this section. The amendment to Sec.  383.73(m) splits
driver processing, but it will not double either the time or effort
needed to issue a CDL. The $2.97 million \1\ per year cost for
processing time will remain unchanged despite the amendment because the
extra time burden has been factored into the May 2011 Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This amount is calculated by multiplying ($24.45/hr.) of a
licensing clerk by the (\1/6\ of an hour) of processing time, by the
number of new CDLs processed annually (530,000). Final Rule
Regulatory Evaluation: Commercial Driver's License Testing and
Commercial Learner's Permit Standards. p. 12 March 2011. The
processing cost includes $26,500 CLP CDLIS record change and
$779,100 tamper proofing of CLPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, FMCSA agreed that annual background checks for skills test
examiners as described in 49 CFR 384.228(h) were unnecessary. FMCSA
amends this section to require background checks on test examiners only
at the time of hiring. This will produce a total cost saving of
$214,400 \2\ per year, after conducting an initial background check.
This represents the only quantifiable cost savings of the rule, but
other provisions will result in unquantifiable benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ OMB Control No. 2126-0011 titled, ``Commercial Driver
Licensing and Test Standards.'' May 1, 2012, pp. 22-23. This amount
is calculated by multiplying 2,144 skills test examiners x $100/per
FBI background check = $214,400.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    FMCSA is not required to prepare a new Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (RFA) because the RFA performed for the May 2011, final rule
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 604(a) remains fully applicable to this final
rule. The 2011 RFA provided estimates of the active motor carrier
population and the number of entities subject to the rule at that time.
While these numbers may have changed slightly in the intervening
months, they do not affect the conclusions of the 2011 RFA in any way.

Assistance for Small Entities

    In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, FMCSA wants to assist small entities
in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects
on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the rule
would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance; please consult the FMCSA point of contact,
Robert Redmond, listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
of this rule.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal
regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and
Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small
Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these
actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small
business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call
1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy ensuring the rights
of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit
policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This final rule does not impose an unfunded Federal mandate, as
defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532 et
seq.), that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $141.3
million (which is the value of $100 million in 2010 after adjusting for
inflation) or more in any 1 year.

E.O. 13132 (Federalism)

    FMCSA has analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' and has determined
that it does not have federalism implications.
    The Federalism Order applies to ``policies that have federalism
implications,'' which it defines as regulations and other actions that
have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
Sec. 1(a). The key concept here is ``substantial direct effects on the
States.'' Sec. 3(b) of the Federalism Order provides that ``[n]ational
action limiting the policymaking discretion of the States shall be
taken only where there is constitutional and statutory authority for
the action and the national activity is appropriate in light of the
presence of a problem of national significance.''
    The rule amends the commercial driver's license (CDL) program
authorized by the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (49
U.S.C. chapter 313). States have been issuing CDLs in accordance with
Federal standards for well over a decade. The CDL program does not have
preemptive effect. It is voluntary; States may withdraw at any time,
although doing so will result in the loss of certain Federal-aid
highway funds pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 31314. Because this rule makes only
a few small incremental changes to the requirements already imposed on
participating States, FMCSA has determined that it does not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the Federal and State governments, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.

E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This final rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

E.O. 13045 (Protection of Children)

    E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks
and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997), requires agencies
issuing ``economically significant'' rules, if the regulation also
concerns an environmental health or safety risk that an agency has
reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, to include an
evaluation of the regulation's environmental health and safety effects
on children. The Agency determined this final rule is not significant
within the meaning of E.O. 12866 and the estimated cost of the rule is
not expected to exceed the economic annual threshold. Therefore, no
analysis of the impacts on children is required. In any event, the
Agency does not believe that this regulatory action could create an
environmental or safety risk that could disproportionately affect
children.

E.O. 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    FMCSA reviewed this final rule in accordance with Executive Order
12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights, and has determined it will not effect a
taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications.

Privacy Impact Assessment

    FMCSA conducted a privacy impact assessment of this rule as
required by section 522(a)(5) of the FY 2005 Omnibus Appropriations
Act, Public Law 108-447, 118 Stat. 3268 (Dec. 8, 2004) [set out as a
note to 5 U.S.C. 552a]. The assessment considers any impacts of the
rule on the privacy of information in an identifiable form and related
matters. FMCSA has determined this rule would have no privacy impacts.

E.O. 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding
intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do
not apply to this program.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. This rulemaking
affects the currently-approved information collection covered by the
OMB Control No. 2126-0011 titled, ``Commercial Driver Licensing and
Test Standards.'' The current OMB approved information collection has
an annual burden of 1,628,582 hours and will expire on August 31, 2014.
    This action updates and provides more uniform procedures for
ensuring that the applicant has the appropriate knowledge and skills to
operate a commercial motor vehicle. It also adjusts some of the
procedures used in the testing and licensing process due to
recommendations accepted in the petitions for reconsideration of
rulemaking. FMCSA believes this rule will result in an estimated
decrease in the annual burden hours compared to the 2011 final rule.
    The following table summarizes the burden hours for current and
future information collection activities for the first 4 years of
implementation of the new requirements and for the 5th and subsequent
years of maintaining the CDL program with the new requirements. Relying
on past experiences, the Agency believes there will be no increase in
annual burden hours for the first 4 years because the States have 4
years to pass legislation and make the necessary system changes before
implementing the new CDL testing and CLP standards, and posting the
data generated by these new requirements to the CDLIS driver record.
The increase of 262,705 total annual burden hours for the 5th and
subsequent years (1,891,287-1,628,582) is due to the implementation of
the new requirements for CDL testing and the issuance of CLPs. This
represents a decrease in the total annual burden estimate for the 5th
and subsequent years of 120,733 hours (2,012,020-1,891,287) from the
previously anticipated total (see ``Commercial Driver's License Testing
and Commercial Learner's Permit Standards,'' 76 FR 26854, May 9, 2011)
due to program changes in this rule, including the elimination of the
second person to verify all documents and the elimination of the annual
background checks for test examiners. A detailed analysis of the annual
burden hour changes for each information collection activity can be
found in the Supporting Statement of OMB Control Number 2126-0011.

                                Current and Future Information Collection Burdens
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Future annual
                                                                                Future annual   burden hours
                                                                     Currently     burden hours     for 5th and
 Current and future information collection activities for States     approved       for first 4     subsequent
                         and CDL drivers                           annual burden       years           years
                                                                       hours         (program        (program
                                                                                change)         change)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State recording medical examiner's certificate information......         205,333         205,333         205,333
State recording of the self- certification of commercial motor             3,984           3,984           3,984
 vehicle operation on the CDLIS record..........................
State verification of medical certification status of all                  2,593           2,593           2,593
 interstate CDL drivers.........................................
Driver to notify employer of convictions/disqualifications......         640,000         640,000         640,000
Driver to complete previous employment paperwork................         403,200         403,200         403,200
States to complete compliance certification documents...........           1,632           1,632           1,632
State to complete compliance review documents...................           2,400           2,400           2,400
Data/document checks and CDLIS recordkeeping....................         212,224         212,224         461,632
Drivers to complete the CDL application.........................          48,000          48,000          56,486
CDL tests recordkeeping.........................................          84,000          84,000          77,910
Knowledge and skills test examiner certification................          25,216          25,216           7,578
Skills test examiner monitoring and auditing....................               0               0          28,539
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Burden Hours..........................................       1,628,582       1,628,582       1,891,287
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Air Act

    The FMCSA analyzed this rulemaking for the purpose of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
determined under its environmental procedures Order 5610.1, published
March 1, 2004 in the Federal Register (69 FR 9680), that this action is
categorically excluded (CE) from further environmental documentation
under Paragraph 4.s of the Order. That CE relates to establishing
regulations, and actions taken pursuant to these regulations,
concerning requirements for drivers to have a single commercial motor
vehicle driver's license. In addition, the Agency believes that this
rule includes no extraordinary circumstances that will have any effect
on the quality of the environment. Thus, the action does not require an
environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement.
    The FMCSA also analyzed this rule under the Clean Air Act, as
amended (CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and
implementing regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection
Agency. Approval of this action is exempt from the CAA's general
conformity requirement since it involves rulemaking and policy
development and issuance.

E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)

    FMCSA has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use. The Agency has determined that it is not a
``significant energy action'' under that Executive Order because it is
not economically significant and is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)

    This rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because
it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (Technical Standards)

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance,
design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related
management systems practices) are standards that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use
technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of
voluntary consensus standards.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 383

    Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse,
Highway safety, Motor carriers.

49 CFR Part 384

    Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse,
Highway safety, Motor carriers.

    Accordingly, FMCSA amends parts 383 and 384 of title 49 of the Code
of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

PART 383--COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE STANDARDS; REQUIREMENTS AND
PENALTIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 383 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 521, 31136, 31301 et seq., and 31502; secs.
214 and 215 of Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1766, 1767; sec.
1012(b) of Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272, 397; sec. 4140 of Pub. L.
109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1726; and 49 CFR 1.86.

0
2. Amend Sec.  383.73 by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(vi), (b)(6),
(c)(7), (d)(7), (e)(5), (f)(2)(ii), and (m) to read as follows:

Sec.  383.73  State procedures.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (vi) Require compliance with the standards for providing proof of
citizenship or lawful permanent residency specified in Sec.
383.71(a)(2)(v) and proof of State of domicile specified in Sec.
383.71(a)(2)(vi). Exception: A State is required to check the proof of
citizenship or legal presence specified in this paragraph only for
initial issuance, renewal or upgrade of a CLP

or Non-domiciled CLP and for initial issuance, renewal, upgrade or
transfer of a CDL or Non-domiciled CDL for the first time after July 8,
2011, provided a notation is made on the driver's record confirming
that the proof of citizenship or legal presence check required by this
paragraph has been made and noting the date it was done;
    (b) * * *
    (6) Require compliance with the standards for providing proof of
citizenship or lawful permanent residency specified in Sec.
383.71(b)(9) and proof of State of domicile specified in Sec.
383.71(b)(10). Exception: A State is required to check the proof of
citizenship or legal presence specified in this paragraph only for
initial issuance, renewal or upgrade of a CLP or Non-domiciled CLP and
for initial issuance, renewal, upgrade or transfer of a CDL or Non-
domiciled CDL for the first time after July 8, 2011, provided a
notation is made on the driver's record confirming that the proof of
citizenship or legal presence check required by this paragraph has been
made and noting the date it was done;
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (7) Require compliance with the standards for providing proof of
citizenship or lawful permanent residency specified in Sec.
383.71(b)(9) and proof of State of domicile specified in Sec.
383.71(b)(10). Exception: A State is required to check the proof of
citizenship or legal presence specified in this paragraph only for
initial issuance, renewal or upgrade of a CLP or Non-domiciled CLP and
for initial issuance, renewal, upgrade or transfer of a CDL or Non-
domiciled CDL for the first time after July 8, 2011, provided a
notation is made on the driver's record confirming that the proof of
citizenship or legal presence check required by this paragraph has been
made and noting the date it was done;
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (7) Require compliance with the standards for providing proof of
citizenship or lawful permanent residency specified in Sec.
383.71(b)(9) and proof of State of domicile specified in Sec.
383.71(b)(10). Exception: A State is required to check the proof of
citizenship or legal presence specified in this paragraph only for
initial issuance, renewal or upgrade of a CLP or Non-domiciled CLP and
for initial issuance, renewal, upgrade or transfer of a CDL or Non-
domiciled CDL for the first time after July 8, 2011, provided a
notation is made on the driver's record confirming that the proof of
citizenship or legal presence check required by this paragraph has been
made and noting the date it was done; and
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (5) Require compliance with the standards for providing proof of
citizenship or lawful permanent residency specified in Sec.
383.71(b)(9) and proof of State of domicile specified in Sec.
383.71(b)(10). Exception: A State is required to check the proof of
citizenship or legal presence specified in this paragraph only for
initial issuance, renewal or upgrade of a CLP or Non-domiciled CLP and
for initial issuance, renewal, upgrade, or transfer of a CDL or Non-
domiciled CDL, for the first time after July 8, 2011, provided a
notation is made on the driver's record confirming that the proof of
citizenship or legal presence check required by this paragraph has been
made and noting the date it was done;
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) The State must add the word ``non-domiciled'' to the face of
the CLP or CDL, in accordance with Sec.  383.153(c); and
* * * * *
    (m) Document verification. The State must require at least two
persons within the driver licensing agency to participate substantively
in the processing and verification of the documents involved in the
licensing process for initial issuance, renewal or upgrade of a CLP or
Non-domiciled CLP and for initial issuance, renewal, upgrade or
transfer of a CDL or Non-domiciled CDL. The documents being processed
and verified must include, at a minimum, those provided by the
applicant to prove legal presence and domicile, the information filled
out on the application form, and knowledge and skills test scores. This
section does not require two people to process or verify each document
involved in the licensing process. Exception: For offices with only one
staff member, at least some of the documents must be processed or
verified by a supervisor before issuance or, when a supervisor is not
available, copies must be made of some of the documents involved in the
licensing process and a supervisor must verify them within one business
day of issuance of the CLP, Non-domiciled CLP, CDL or Non-domiciled
CDL.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  383.75 by revising paragraphs (a)(7) and (a)(8)(v) to
read as follows:

Sec.  383.75  Third party testing.

    (a) * * *
    (7) A skills test examiner who is also a skills instructor either
as a part of a school, training program or otherwise is prohibited from
administering a skills test to an applicant who received skills
training by that skills test examiner; and
    (8) * * *
    (v) Require the third party tester to initiate and maintain a bond
in an amount determined by the State to be sufficient to pay for re-
testing drivers in the event that the third party or one or more of its
examiners is involved in fraudulent activities related to conducting
skills testing of applicants for a CDL. Exception: A third party tester
that is a government entity is not required to maintain a bond.
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  383.153 by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (h) to read as
follows:

Sec.  383.153  Information on the CLP and CDL documents and
applications.

* * * * *
    (b) Commercial Learner's Permit. (1) A CLP may, but is not required
to, contain a digital color image or photograph or black and white
laser engraved photograph.
* * * * *
    (h) On or after July 8, 2014 current CLP and CDL holders who do not
have the standardized endorsement and restriction codes and applicants
for a CLP or CDL are to be issued CLPs with the standardized codes upon
initial issuance, renewal or upgrade and CDLs with the standardized
codes upon initial issuance, renewal, upgrade or transfer.

PART 384--STATE COMPLIANCE WITH COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE PROGRAM

0
5. The authority citation for part 384 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31136, 31301, et seq., and 31502; secs. 103
and 215 of Pub. L. 106-59, 113 Stat. 1753, 1767; and 49 CFR 1.87.

0
6. Amend Sec.  384.105 by revising the definition ``Issue and
Issuance'' to read as follows:

Sec.  384.105  Definitions

* * * * *
    Issue and issuance means the initial issuance, renewal or upgrade
of a CLP or Non-domiciled CLP and the initial issuance, renewal,
upgrade or transfer of a CDL or Non-domiciled CDL, as described in
Sec.  383.73 of this subchapter.
* * * * *

0
7. Amend Sec.  384.227 to revise paragraph (c) and add paragraph (d)
read as follows:

Sec.  384.227  Record of digital image or photograph.

* * * * *
    (c) Check the digital color image or photograph or black and white
laser engraved photograph on record whenever the CLP applicant or
holder appears in person to issue, renew or upgrade a CLP and when a
duplicate CLP is issued.
    (d) If no digital color image or photograph or black and white
laser engraved photograph exists on record, the State must check the
photograph or image on the base-license presented with the CLP or CDL
application.

0
8. Amend Sec.  384.228 by revising paragraph (h) to read as follows:

Sec.  384.228  Examiner training and record checks.

* * * * *
    (h)(1) Complete nationwide criminal background check of all State
and third party test examiners at the time of hiring.
    (2) Complete nationwide criminal background check of any State and
third party current test examiner who has not had a nationwide criminal
background check.
* * * * *

0
9. Amend Sec.  384.301 by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:

Sec.  384.301  Substantial compliance--general requirements.

* * * * *
    (f) A State must come into substantial compliance with the
requirements of subpart B of this part in effect as of July 8, 2011 and
April 24, 2013 as soon as practical but, unless otherwise specifically
provided in this part, not later than July 8, 2015.
* * * * *

0
10. Amend Sec.  384.405 by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as
follows:

Sec.  384.405  Decertification of State CDL program.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) The State computer system does not check the Commercial
Driver's License Information System (CDLIS) and/or national Driver
Registry problem Driver Pointer System (PDPS) as required by Sec.
383.73 of this subchapter when issuing, renewing or upgrading a CLP or
issuing, renewing, upgrading or transferring a CDL.
* * * * *

    Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.73: March
18, 2013.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-06760 Filed 3-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 84 (Monday, May 2, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26141-26146]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10227]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0524; FRL-9944-10]

Propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- ; Exemption from the
Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl-
(CAS Reg. No. 35123-06-9) when used as an inert ingredient (solvent/co-
solvent) in pesticides applied to growing crops and raw agricultural
commodities after harvest under 40 CFR 180.910 or in pesticides applied
to animals under 40 CFR 180.930 limited to maximum concentration of 20%
by weight in the pesticide formulation. Spring Trading Company, LLC on
behalf of BASF Corporation submitted a petition to EPA under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment
of an exemption from the

requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to
establish a maximum permissible level for residues of propanamide, 2-
hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl-.

DATES: This regulation is effective May 2, 2016. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before July 1, 2016, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0524, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. 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 OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lewis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0524 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
July 1, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0524, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of September 9, 2015 (80 FR 54257) (FRL-
9933-26), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21
U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP IN-
10782) by Spring Trading Company, LLC (10805 W. Timberwagon Circle
Spring, TX 77380) on behalf of BASF Corporation (100 Campus Drive,
Florham Park, NJ 07932). The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.910 and
40 CFR 180.930 be amended by establishing exemptions from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-
dimethyl- (CAS Reg. No. 35123-06-9) when used as an inert ingredient
(solvent/co-solvent) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops
and raw agricultural commodities after harvest or in pesticides applied
to animals, respectively. That document referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by Spring Trading Company, LLC on behalf of BASF
Corporation, the petitioner, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
limited the maximum concentration of propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-
dimethyl to 20% by weight in pesticide formulations. The reasons for
this change are explained in Unit V.B. below.

III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply
nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a
tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert
ingredients.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will

result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to
infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue. . . .''
    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably
foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human
health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to
pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the
inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert
ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures
that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA
is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-
dimethyl- including exposure resulting from the exemption established
by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with
propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the adverse effects caused by propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl-
as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-
observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are
discussed in this unit.
    Propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- is of low acute oral, dermal
and inhalation toxicity in rats; all lethal dose (LD)50s are
greater than 1,000 mg/kg. Dermal irritation is not observed in rabbits.
It is mildly irritating to the eyes of rabbits. It is not a dermal
sensitizer in mice in the lymph node assay.
    The toxicity studies summarized below were all conducted with
propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- except the chronic toxicity
study. That study was conducted with N, N-dimethylacetamide, a
structurally similar chemical. The only difference between the two
chemicals is that N, N-dimethylacetamide is missing a hydroxyl group on
a carbon atom. Both compounds are expected to undergo similar
metabolism (in this case, N-oxidation) by cytochrome P450 enzymes and
have similar toxicological profiles; therefore, the Agency has
determined the data to be suitable for evaluating propanamide.
    In rats, 90 days of oral exposure to propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-
dimethyl- results in increased cholesterol and triglyceride levels,
increased liver weights and centrilobular hypertrophy at 1,000
milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day), the limit dose. The NOAEL is 500
mg/kg/day. Reproduction parameters, estrus cyclicity and sperm
parameters were also evaluated in this study and were found to be
unaffected at 1,000 mg/kg/day.
    A developmental toxicity study in rats showed no maternal toxicity
at 500 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested. Quantitative fetal
susceptibility was observed as reduced body weight in pups at 500 mg/
kg/day. The developmental NOAEL was 200 mg/kg/day.
    Propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- was not mutagenic in the
Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells HGPRT locus gene mutation assay or
the micronucleus test.
    Propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- is not expected to be
carcinogenic based on the absence of structural alerts using Deductive
Estimation of Risk from Existing Knowledge (Derek) Nexus program and
the lack of mutagenicity. It is not expected to be neurotoxic based on
the functional observation battery or on motor activity in the 90-day
oral toxicity study in rats.
    Immunotoxicity studies for propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl-
were not available for review. However, evidence of immunotoxicity was
not observed in the submitted studies.
    Chronic studies with propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- are not
available for review. However, a chronic study conducted for 12 months
in rats treated with N, N-dimethylacetamide, a structurally similar
chemical, was used as surrogate data. In this study toxicity manifested
as reduced bodyweight was observed at 300 mg/kg/day. The NOAEL is 100
mg/kg/day.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    An acute effect was not found in the database therefore an acute
dietary assessment is not necessary. The chronic reference dose (cRfD)
as well as the toxicity endpoint applicable to all exposure scenarios
was based on the 12-month chronic toxicity study in rats. In this
study, the NOAEL was 100 mg/kg/day based on reduced bodyweights at 300
mg/kg/day, the LOAEL. This represents the lowest NOAEL in the most
sensitive species in the toxicity database. The standard uncertainty
factors were applied to account for interspecies (10x) and intraspecies
(10x) variations. The Food Quality Protection

Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF) was reduced to 1x. Default values of 100%
absorption were used in dermal and inhalation toxicity endpoint
selection.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl-, EPA considered
exposure under the proposed exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance. EPA assessed dietary exposures from propanamide, 2-hydroxy-
N, N-dimethyl- in food as follows:
    Dietary exposure (food and drinking water) to propanamide, 2-
hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- can occur following ingestion of foods with
residues from treated crops and animals. Because no adverse effects
attributable to a single exposure of propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-
dimethyl- are seen in the toxicity databases, an acute dietary risk
assessment is not necessary. For the chronic dietary risk assessment,
EPA used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food
Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCIDTM, Version 3.16, and
food consumption information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
(USDA's) 2003-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey,
What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, no
residue data were submitted for propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl-.
In the absence of specific residue data, EPA has developed an approach
which uses surrogate information to derive upper bound exposure
estimates for the subject inert ingredient. Upper bound exposure
estimates are based on the highest tolerance for a given commodity from
a list of high use insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides. One
hundred percent crop treated (PCT) was assumed, default processing
factors, and tolerance-level residues for all foods and use limitations
of not more than 20% by weight in pesticide formulations. A complete
description of the general approach taken to assess inert ingredient
risks in the absence of residue data is contained in the memorandum
entitled ``Alkyl Amines Polyalkoxylates (Cluster 4): Acute and Chronic
Aggregate (Food and Drinking Water) Dietary Exposure and Risk
Assessments for the Inerts,'' (D361707, S. Piper, 2/25/09) and can be
found at http://www.regulations.gov in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2008-0738.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. For the purpose of the
screening-level dietary risk assessment to support this request for an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for propanamide, 2-
hydroxy-N, N- dimethyl-, a conservative drinking water concentration
value of 100 parts per billion (ppb) based on screening level modeling
was used to assess the contribution to drinking water for the chronic
dietary risk assessments for parent compound. These values were
directly entered into the dietary exposure model.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming
pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).
    Propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- may be used in inert
ingredients in products that are registered for specific uses that may
result in residential exposure, such as pesticides used in and round
the home. The Agency conducted an assessment to represent worst-case
residential exposure by assessing propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl-
in pesticide formulations (outdoor scenarios) and in disinfectant-type
uses (indoor scenarios).
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- to share a
common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and
propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- does not appear to produce a
toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that propanamide, 2-
hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- does not have a common mechanism of toxicity
with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to
determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to
evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site
at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in
the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure
unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of
safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA SF. In applying this
provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a
different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA
support the choice of a different factor.
    The toxicity database for propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl-
contains a subchronic, developmental, chronic and mutagenicity studies.
There is no indication of neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity in the
available studies; therefore, there is no need to require neurotoxicity
or immunotoxicity studies. Quantitative fetal susceptibility was
observed in the developmental study in rats. Fetal toxicity (reduced
bodyweight) was observed at 500 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested,
while toxicity was not observed in maternal animals. The developmental
NOAEL was 200 mg/kg/day. However, fetal effects are not of concern
since the cRfD (1mg/kg/day) will be protective of effects seen at 500
mg/kg/day. In addition, the Agency used conservative exposure
estimates, with 100 PCT, tolerance-level residues, conservative
drinking water modeling numbers, and a worst-case assessment of
potential residential exposure for infants and children. Based on the
adequacy of the toxicity and exposure databases and the lack of concern
for prenatal and postnatal sensitivity, the Agency has concluded that
there is reliable data to determine that infants and children will be
safe if the FQPA SF of 10x is reduced to 1x.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified

and no acute dietary endpoint was selected.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- from food and water will utilize
28.4% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group
receiving the greatest exposure.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    Propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- may be used as an inert
ingredient in pesticide products that could result in short-term
residential exposure and the Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with
short-term residential exposures to propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-
dimethyl-. Using the exposure assumptions described above, EPA has
concluded that the combined short-term aggregated food, water, and
residential exposures result in MOEs of 115 for both adult males and
females. Adult residential exposure combines high-end dermal and
inhalation handler exposure from liquids/trigger sprayer/home garden
with a high-end post- application dermal exposure from contact with
treated lawns. Adult residential exposure combines high-end dermal and
inhalation handler exposure from liquids/trigger sprayer/home garden
with a high-end post- application dermal exposure from contact with
treated lawns. EPA has concluded the combined short-term aggregated
food, water, and residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of
154 for children. Children's residential exposure includes total
exposures associated with contact with treated lawns (dermal and hand-
to-mouth exposures). As the level of concern is for MOEs that are lower
than 100, these MOEs are not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level).
    Propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- may be used as an inert
ingredient in pesticide products that could result in intermediate-term
residential exposure and the Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with
intermediate-term residential exposures to propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-
dimethyl-. Using the exposure assumptions described above, EPA has
concluded that the combined intermediate-term aggregated food, water,
and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 591 for adult
males and females. Adult residential exposure combines indoor hard
surface, wiping with a high-end post-application dermal exposure from
contact with treated lawns. As the level of concern is for MOEs that
are lower than 100, this MOE is not of concern. EPA has concluded the
combined intermediate-term aggregated food, water, and residential
exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 214 for children. Children's
residential exposure includes total exposures associated with contact
with treated surfaces (dermal and hand-to-mouth exposures). As the
level of concern is for MOEs that are lower than 100, this MOE is not
of concern.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on a DEREK
structural alert analysis, the lack of mutagenicity and the lack of
specific organ toxicity in the chronic toxicity study, propanamide, 2-
hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N- dimethyl-.

V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is not establishing a numerical tolerance for residues of
propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- in or on any food commodities.
EPA is establishing a limitation on the amount of propanamide, 2-
hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- that may be used in pesticide formulations
applied to growing crops. That limitation will be enforced through the
pesticide registration process under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (``FIFRA''), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. EPA
will not register any pesticide formulation for use on growing crops
for sale or distribution that exceeds 20% by weight of propanamide, 2-
hydroxy-N, N- dimethyl-.

B. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerance Exemptions

    Based upon an evaluation of the data included in the petition, EPA
is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl when used in pesticide
formulations as an inert ingredient (solvent/co-solvent), not to exceed
20% by weight of the formulation, instead of the unlimited use
requested. When considering unlimited use resulted in aggregate risks
of concern, the petitioner revised their request to seek a 20%
limitation by weight of formulation. The basis for this revision can be
found at http://www.regulations.gov in document ``Propanamide, 2-
hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl-; Human Health Risk Assessment and Ecological
Effects Assessment to Support Proposed Exemption From the Requirement
of a Tolerance When Used as an Inert Ingredient in Pesticide
Formulations'' in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0524.

VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is
established under 40 CFR 180.910 for residues of propanamide, 2-
hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- (Reg. No. 35123-06-9) when used as an inert
ingredient (solvent/co-solvent) at a maximum concentration of 20% by
weight in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or raw
agricultural commodities after harvest and under 40 CFR 180.930 when
used in pesticide formulations applied to animals.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes exemptions to the requirement for a
tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition
submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order
12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review
under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information
collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special
considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions
to Address Environmental Justice in Minority

Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemptions in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 21, 2016.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.910, add alphabetically the inert ingredient to the
table to read as follows:

Sec.  180.910  Inert ingredients used pre- and post-harvest; exemptions
from the requirement of a tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Inert ingredients               Limits               Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-      Not to exceed 20%   Solvent/co-
 dimethyl- (CAS Reg. No. 35123-    by weight in        solvent.
 06-9).                            pesticide
                                   formulation.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. In Sec.  180.930, add alphabetically the inert ingredient to the
table to read as follows:

Sec.  180.930  Inert ingredients applied to animals; exemptions from
the requirement of a tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Inert ingredients               Limits               Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-      Not to exceed 20%   Solvent/co-solvent
 dimethyl- (CAS Reg. No. 35123-    by weight in
 06-9).                            pesticide
                                   formulation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-10227 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 97 (Tuesday, May 19, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29980-29981]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10726]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Susan Harwood Training Grant Program, FY 2020

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
Department of Labor.

ACTION: Notice of availability of funds and funding opportunity
announcements (FOA) for Susan Harwood Training Grant Program grants.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces availability of approximately $11.5
million for Susan Harwood Training Grant Program grants. Three separate
funding opportunity announcements are available for Targeted Topic
Training grants, Training and Educational Materials Development grants,
and new Capacity Building grants (Funding Opportunity Number SHTG-FY-
20-03 will cover two types of Capacity Building grants: (1) Capacity
Building Pilot and (2) Capacity Building Developmental grants).

DATES: Grant applications for Susan Harwood Training Program grants
must be received electronically by the Grants.gov system no later than
11:59 p.m., ET, on July 20, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The complete Susan Harwood Training Grant Program funding
opportunity announcements

and all information needed to apply are available at the Grants.gov
website, https://www.grants.gov/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding the funding
opportunity announcements should be emailed to Donna Robertson, Harwood
Grants Coordinator, at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by telephone at 847-
725-7805. Personnel will not be available to answer questions after
5:00 p.m., ET. To obtain further information on the Susan Harwood
Training Grant Program, visit the OSHA website at https://www.osha.gov/harwoodgrants. Questions regarding Grants.gov should be emailed to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or directed to Applicant Support toll free at 1-800-
518-4726. Applicant Support is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Funding Opportunity Number: SHTG-FY-20-01 (Targeted Topic Training
grants).
    Funding Opportunity Number: SHTG-FY-20-02 (Training and Educational
Materials Development grants).
    Funding Opportunity Number: SHTG-FY-20-03 (Capacity Building
grants).
    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 17.502.

Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, directed the preparation
of this notice. The authority for this notice is Section 21 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, (29 U.S.C. 670), Public Law
113-235, and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC.
Loren Sweatt,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration.
[FR Doc. 2020-10726 Filed 5-18-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P