United States Office of Prevention, Pesticides Environmental Protection and Toxic Substances Agency ( 7508P)

Report of the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decision ( TRED) for Boric Acid/ Sodium Borate Salts Report of the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decision ( TRED) for Boric Acid/ Sodium Borate Salts Approved By:

Debra Edwards, Ph. D. Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division Date _____________________ Table of Contents I. Regulatory Determination .................................................................................................. 1 II. Tolerance Reassessment ..................................................................................................... 2 A. Toxicity Categories ..................................................................................................... 2 B. Toxicity Endpoints .......................................................................................................... 3 C. FQPA Safety Factor Considerations................................................................................... 6 D. Dietary Risks from Food and Drinking Water ..................................................................... 6 E. Residential Risks .............................................................................................................. 7 F. Incident Reports ............................................................................................................ 10 G. Aggregate Risk.............................................................................................................. 11 III. Regulatory Decision......................................................................................................... 11 A. FQPA Assessment Supporting Tolerance Reassessment Decision ................................. 11 B. Cumulative Risk............................................................................................................ 13 C. Endocrine Disruptor Effects .......................................................................................... 13 D. Risk Mitigation ............................................................................................................. 14 E. Data Needs.................................................................................................................... 14 IV. References ....................................................................................................................... 14 1 I. Regulatory Determination The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), as amended by FQPA, requires the Environmental Protection Agency ( hereafter referred to as EPA or the Agency) to reassess all the tolerances for registered chemicals in effect on the day before enactment of the FQPA on August 3, 1996. In reassessing these tolerances, the Agency must consider, among other things, aggregate risks from non occupational sources of pesticide exposure, whether there is increased susceptibility to infants and children, and the cumulative effects of pesticides with a common mechanism of toxicity. When a safety finding has been made that aggregate risks are not of concern, the tolerances are considered reassessed. Existing tolerance exemptions associated with boric acid/ sodium borate salts must be reassessed in accordance with FFDCA, as amended by FQPA.

The Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) 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." Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to boric acid, and boric acid does not produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. Therefore, for the purposes of tolerance reassessment, EPA has not assumed that boric acid shares a common mechanism of toxicity with other compounds. 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 the policy statements released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs concerning common mechanism determinations and procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism of toxicity on EPA's website at http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ cumulative/.

References to the terms " boric acid and sodium borate salts," and or " boric acid/ sodium borate salts" in this document refer to boric acid and several borate salts including sodium tetraborate decahydrate, sodium tetraborate pentahydrate, sodium tetraborate anhydrous, disodium octaborate tetrahydrate, disodium octaborate anhydrous, and sodium metaborate. Risks summarized in this document are from boric acid and these sodium borate salts only.

Boric acid and sodium borate salts are used as acaricides, algaecides, fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides. Boric acid and sodium borate salts are frequently used for control of insects such as ants or roaches by application in non agricultural food and feed areas. Boric acid and sodium borate salts have herbicide qualities causing desiccation, fungicidal properties by inhibiting the growth of fungi by preventing the production of conidia or asexual spores, and insecticidal properties by acting as a stomach poison against ants, cockroaches, silverfish, and termites. Use sites include animal housing, turf, wood products, forests, sewage systems, transportation and storage facilities, medical/ veterinary 2 institutions, uncultivated agricultural/ nonagricultural areas, refuse/ solid waste sites, swimming pool ( algae control), paved areas and aquatic structures. Boric acid and sodium borate salts are also used as inert ingredients in pesticide products as sequestrants.

The Agency's human health and residential risk findings for the pesticide boric acid and sodium borate salts are summarized in the following documents: Boric Acid/ Sodium Borate Salts: HED Chapter of the Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decision Document ( TRED), Supplement to HED Chapter of the Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decision Document ( TRED), and Boric Acid: Residential Exposure Assessment for the Tolerance Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document. For further details, please refer to these risk assessments and other technical documents pertaining to the boric acid/ sodium borate salts TRED, which are available on the internet at http:// www. regulations. gov and in the public docket.

Ecological and occupational assessments were conducted when the reregistration eligibility decision ( RED) was issued for boric acid/ sodium borate salts in 1994. Therefore, no ecological or occupational assessments were conducted as part of this TRED for boric acid/ sodium borate salts.

Although boric acid/ sodium borate salts are registered for use on numerous food/ feed crops, dietary risk assessments were not necessary since the pesticidal use on food items contributes negligible amounts of boron relative to the naturally occurring background of boron. The aggregate risk assessment for boric acid/ sodium borate salts is based on the residential uses, including exposures from pesticides, inerts and consumer uses.

The Agency has evaluated the human health risks associated with all currently registered uses including inert ingredient uses of boric acid/ sodium borate salts and has determined that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate non occupational exposure to the pesticide chemical risks for most of the scenarios assessed. The Agency used exposure studies submitted by the registrants in the public comment period to assess wood treatments and a risk assessment conducted by California Department of Pesticide Regulation for the carpet and the crack and crevice treatments. The risks associated with these scenarios are below the Agency's level of concern with this additional exposure information. Additional data will be required to confirm the exposure assumptions from the summaries. In addition, some of the residential postapplication scenarios for higher application rate uses in swimming pools and spas which were assessed in the risk assessment exceed the Agency's level of concern ( LOC) for children's incidental ingestion during swimming activities. These scenarios are discussed later in the TRED and the Agency has identified risk mitigation measures that reduce the risks to below the Agency's LOC.

II. Tolerance Reassessment A. Toxicity Categories 3 The available toxicity data on boric acid/ sodium borate salts are adequate to assess boric acid/ sodium borate salts hazard potential. Table 1 below presents the acute toxicity profile for boric acid and Table 2 presents the acute toxicity profile for sodium tetraborate decahydrate ( borax). These represent the acute toxicity information for the boric acid/ sodium borate salts.

Table 1. Acute Toxicity Profile on Boric Acid Guideline Study Type MRID Results Toxicity Category 870.1100 Acute oral toxicity / rat 00006719 LD50 males= 3,450 mg/ kg LD50 females= 4080 mg/ kg III 870.1100 Acute oral toxicity/ beagle dog 00064208 LD50> 631 mg/ kg III 870.1200 Acute dermal toxicity/ rabbit 00106011 LD50 > 2 g/ kg III 870.1300 Acute inhalation toxicity / rat 00005592 LC50 > 0.16 mg/ L II 870.2400 Acute eye irritation / rabbit 000064209 Conjunctival irritation clearing by Day 4 III 870.2500 Acute dermal irritation / rabbit 00106011 Irritant III Table 2. Acute Toxicity Profile on Sodium Tetraborate Decahydrate ( Borax)

Guideline Study Type MRID Results Toxicity Category 870.1100 Acute oral toxicity / rat 40692303 LD50 males= 4,550 mg/ kg LD50 females= 4,980 mg/ kg III 870.1100 Acute oral toxicity/ dog 40692304 LD50> 974 mg/ kg III 870.1200 Acute dermal toxicity/ rabbit 43553201 LD50 > 2000 mg/ kg III 870.2400 Acute eye irritation / rabbit 43553203 Corrosive I 870.2500 Acute dermal irritation / rabbit 43553202 Non irritating IV B. Toxicity Endpoints ( For a complete discussion, see Section 4 of the Boric Acid/ Sodium Borate Salts: HED Chapter of the Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decision Document by L. Hansen and J. 4 Evans dated 6/ 26/ 06 ( D320894).)

In general, the toxicological database for boric acid/ sodium borate salts is adequate for hazard characterization and sufficient data are available to assess potential susceptibility to the young. The toxicological data and findings are presented fully in the document, Boric Acid/ Sodium Borate Salts HED Risk Assessment for Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decision ( TRED) Document.

Boric acid and sodium borate salts exist as undissociated boric acid in aqueous solution at physiological pH. For this reason, they are considered together as a group for purposes of hazard and risk characterization and individual toxicology studies on each active ingredient are not required. The moiety of toxicological concern is boron. Dose comparisons are normalized by conversion to boron equivalents, allowing comparison of studies on boric acid or borax. Boric acid/ sodium borate salts are well absorbed via the gastrointestinal tract and via inhalation, but not via the dermal route through intact skin. Boric acid/ sodium borate salts distribute evenly across the body and do not accumulate in the soft tissue. A limited amount of literature exists on the mechanism of action on the testes and skeletal abnormalities and growth retardation. However, the exact mechanism of action is unknown.

Boron is a ubiquitous element that occurs naturally in plants and water. Humans ingest naturally occurring boron in the diet, and there is some data to suggest that trace levels are required in the human diet. At higher exposure levels, boron causes toxicity. Based on animal studies, it appears that males are most sensitive to boric acid/ boric salts. A major target organ of boric acid/ boric salts is the testes ( signs of toxicity include seminiferous tubule degeneration, atrophy, reduction in sperm count, and reduced testicular weight). Neurotoxicity is also reported in rat studies. However evidence of clinical signs of neurotoxicity occurs only at high dose levels that are above the exposure levels causing other signs of toxicity. Developmental effects on the brain ( enlarged lateral ventricles) were observed in the rat at doses above those causing the most sensitive effect ( skeletal variation and malformations). Since developmental and neurotoxicity effects occur at doses well above the regulatory endpoint, a developmental neurotoxicity ( DNT) study is not required and an additional database uncertainty factor is not necessary for the lack of a DNT study.

The toxicological endpoints for boric acid/ sodium borate salts are summarized in Table 3. For the residential exposure assessment, EPA used a weight of evidence approach from three dog reproductive studies to set the NOAEL and LOAEL. The oral NOAEL of 8.8 mg/ kg/ day boron equivalents came from a two year dog dietary study ( MRID 40692310). The NOAEL from this study was reported from the highest dose tested, thus no LOAEL was reported. The Agency used a weight of evidence approach from two other dog studies to confirm the NOAEL reported in the 2 year study. Evidence of testicular atrophy and slight anemia at the LOAEL of 32 mg/ kg/ day boron equivalents was seen in a 90 day dog study ( MRID 40692307). In a separate study, testicular atrophy was reported at a LOAEL of 40 mg/ kg from a 38 week dog study ( MRID 40692308). Although the exact onset of the testicular effects is not known from the three studies, testicular effects are clearly evident by 90 days. 5 The NOAEL was selected for the short term (< 1 month) incidental oral endpoint as well as the intermediate term ( 1 6 month) incidental oral endpoint. For inhalation exposures, 100% absorption of the oral dose was conservatively assumed.

Boric acid and sodium borate salts are classified under the current carcinogen assessment guidelines as " not likely to be carcinogenic to humans." Available genotoxicity studies do not indicate mutagenic potential. A two year dietary study in the rat and a mouse carcinogenicity study did not show clear evidence of increased cancer incidence.

Table 3. Summary of Toxicological Endpoints Boric Acid/ Sodium Borate Salts Exposure Scenario Factor Used in Risk Assessment Study and Endpoint of Risk Assessment Dietary Risk Assessment Dietary ( Acute and Chronic) all populations NA The contribution of boron residues from food/ feed crop application of boric acid/ sodium borate salts to the total naturally occurring background dietary boron intake from food and water is not considered to be significant. Endpoints for acute and chronic dietary exposure were not selected for this risk assessment because it was determined that a dietary risk assessment ( food plus drinking water exposure) was not necessary at this time.

Residential Risk Assessment ( Adults and Toddlers)

Acute Oral Exposure ( Toddlers)

Acute, Short term and Intermediate term Level of Concern MOE= 100 MRID no: 40692310 Chronic ( 2 year) toxicity ( dogs) NOAEL = 8.8 mg/ kg/ day LOAEL was not determined MRID no: 40692308 Chronic ( 38 week) toxicity ( dogs) NOAEL was not determined LOAEL= 40 mg/ kg/ day males and 46 mg/ kg/ day females Based on decreased body weight gain in males and females and testicular atrophy in males.

MRID no 40692307 Subchronic ( 90 day) toxicity ( dogs) NOAEL= 4.1 mg/ kg/ day, males LOAEL= 32 mg/ kg/ day, males based on testicular atrophy, anemia in subchronic study. 6 Table 3. Summary of Toxicological Endpoints Boric Acid/ Sodium Borate Salts Exposure Scenario Factor Used in Risk Assessment Study and Endpoint of Risk Assessment Inhalation Short term and Intermediate term Level of Concern MOE= 100 ( Assumes inhalation absorption = oral absorption MRID no: 40692310 Chronic toxicity ( dogs) NOAEL = 8.8 mg/ kg/ day Dermal NA No evidence of absorption across intact skin.

Cancer Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans MOE = margin of exposure LOAEL= lowest observed adverse effect level NOAEL= no observed adverse effect level C. FQPA Safety Factor Considerations The FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, directs the Agency to use an additional tenfold ( 10X) safety factor to take into account potential pre and post natal toxicity and completeness of the data with respect to exposure. For boric acid, the FQPA safety factor can be reduced to 1X because there are no residual uncertainties with regard to pre and/ or postnatal toxicity. Also there were no effects on male reproductive function in the rat and mouse reproductive toxicity studies at doses greater than the endpoint used for this risk assessment suggesting that there is no increased developmental sensitivity. And thirdly the residential risk assessment and the background assumptions regarding dietary exposures are not expected to underestimate boric acid exposures. For all exposure scenarios, uncertainty factors of 10X for interspecies and 10X for interspecies variation ( total UF of 100x) were used.

D. Dietary Risks from Food and Drinking Water ( For a complete discussion, see Section 6 of the Boric Acid/ Sodium Borate Salts: HED Chapter of the Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decision Document by L. Hansen and J. Evans dated 6/ 26/ 06 ( D320894).)

Use of boric acid/ sodium borate salts on agricultural crops to control disease and insect infestations has historically been a minor use and as of this assessment there are few agricultural uses. The " screening level" usage data for boric acid/ sodium borate salts available for California indicates very low usage. Only broccoli ( 4,000 lb ai/ yr) and grapes ( 2,000 lb ai/ yr) had usage higher than 500 lb ai/ yr. Based on a review of the currently registered products, which currently have low application rates and low concentrations and 7 percent considering the use of these chemicals as inert ingredients in pesticide products, EPA has no reason to believe that the residue from current agricultural practices will significantly contribute to the total dietary boron intake in humans.

An assessment of dietary ( food and water) exposure was not conducted. Boron is a naturally occurring component of food and water and may be a necessary nutrient at trace levels, although no minimum daily requirement has been established. Background food and drinking water exposures were not included in this risk assessment based on the assumption that there is also background exposure from dietary and drinking water to the laboratory animals used in toxicology studies on boric acid/ sodium borate salts. As active and inert ingredients, boric acid and sodium borate salts are exempt from tolerances and therefore residue data were not submitted for the food/ feed uses.

EPA has recently received registration applications for new agricultural crop uses. EPA has requested that the registrants submitting the registration applications for these uses also submit magnitude of residue data on some agricultural crops to ascertain the amount of residue found on the plant. In the future, EPA will use these data to determine if boron tolerances are necessary for any expansion of use.

E. Residential Risks For a complete discussion, see the following document:   Section 6 of the Boric Acid/ Sodium Borate Salts: HED Chapter of the Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decision Document by L. Hansen and J. Evans dated 6/ 26/ 06 ( D320894).

Boric acid/ sodium borate salts are used as active and inert ingredients in pesticide formulations. Residential use products are most commonly applied indoor as a broadcast spray ( e. g., decks and carpets) and crack and crevice treatments. Boric acid/ sodium borate salts are applied in wood preservatives through pressure treatment and deck spray, and are added to suppress algae growth in swimming pools and as a buffer and chlorine extender. There is a variety of use patterns and formulations ( e. g., liquids, dusts, and granulars) for boric acid/ sodium borate salts.

For boric acid/ sodium borate salts, EPA assessed short term (< 1 month) and intermediate term ( 1 to 6 month) residential risks. Long term exposures were not considered to be realistic based on the use patterns. Since dermal absorption is negligible, a dermal exposure assessment was not necessary. However, EPA did assess inhalation exposure to residential applicators.

EPA evaluated non cancer risks by calculating the margin of exposure ( MOE) which is the ratio of the estimated exposure to the NOAEL. Estimated MOEs are compared to a level of concern ( LOC) which reflects the dose selected for risk assessment and uncertainty factors 8 ( UFs) applied to that dose. The UF for boric acid/ sodium borate salts is 100x, which includes 10x for interspecies extrapolation ( to account for differences between laboratory animals and humans) and 10x for intraspecies variation ( to account for differences between laboratory animals and humans). EPA determined that the available data support the removal of the 10X FQPA safety factor. Thus, scenarios that yield MOEs less than 100 may trigger concern.

No inhalation exposure scenarios resulted in exceedances of the LOC. Calculated handler ( e. g, applicator) inhalation MOEs ranged from a low of 800 for mixing, loading, applying dusts containing boric acid via a shaker can to a high of 5,600,000 for the application of pouron ready to use formulations containing sodium teraborate pentahydrate. The scenarios assessed included applying with aerosol cans, shaker cans, applying by trigger pump and hand wand sprayers, and making a granular bait application.

EPA's preliminary risk assessment, which used screening level assumptions in lieu of actual data, indicated post application risks of concern to children resulting from incidental ingestion of residues from wood products, crack and crevices, and carpets. During and after the public comment period, the registrant and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation ( CDPR) provided additional information on potential exposures and risks which allowed the Agency to refine the initial assessment. The registrant submitted wood residue information ( Lake and McIntyre ( 2006)) and dislodgeable transfer assumptions ( J. D. Lloyd, 1996) to support treated wood uses. Additionally, EPA received a CDPR memorandum ( CDPR, 1996) which presented boron surface residue measurements to refine the carpet and crack and crevice use. Using this information, EPA recalculated the post application risks for these scenarios resulting in significantly higher MOEs which do not exceed the LOC and are not of concern. The Agency is requiring the boric acid/ sodium borate salts registrants to provide complete studies that confirm the exposure assumptions made based on these summaries. The residential uses for which confirmatory data are required are listed below in Table 4 with the MOEs calculated with the summary information. 9 Table 4: Summary of Representative Post Application Exposures for Young Children Based on Hand to Mouth Transfer from the Treated Surface Exposure Scenario Application Rate Dislodgeable Surface Residue ( µ g/ cm2) Boron Average Daily Dose ( mg/ kg day MOE Dust/ Carpet 0.02 lb ai/ sq ft 0.498 0.05 170 Crack and Crevice Dust Carpet 0.02 lb ai / sq ft 0.249 0.03 330 Pressure Treated Wood 10,340 µ g boron/ sq ft 1.1 0.015 590 Deck Spray ( in situ) 462,470 µ g boron/ sq ft 3.73 0.05 180 For the scenarios presented in Table 4, the carpet assessment is based on exposure information from a CDPR Memorandum ( HSM 96004); from T. Formoli, Worker Health and Safety Branch to Karen Fletcher, Pesticide Registration Branch; Re: Evaluation of Human Exposure Potential to eco fresh Carpet Treatment for Fleas ( CDPR, 1996). The assessment for crack and crevice treatments is based on considering the carpet dislodgeable residue measurement in carpets. It is assumed that half the carpet residues are available for crack and crevice exposure scenarios. The Agency will require confirmatory data for all residential uses, including confirmatory data based on surface wipe/ press samples representing the various boron containing compounds ( in dry, bait and sprayable formulations).

The wood preservative assessment has boron concentration measurements based on summary data presented in a MeadWestvaco Memorandum dated April 21, 2006 ( Lake and McIntyre, 2006). For pressure treated wood, the dislodgeable surface residue was calculated by assuming a 10% dislodgeable factor ( J. D. Lloyd, 1996). For the deck spray, the dislodgeable surface residue was calculated by assuming a 1% dislodgeable factor ( J. D., Lloyd, 1996). Confirmatory data supporting the boron wood measurements presented in Lake and McIntyre ( 2006) and dislodgeable data factors of J. D. Lloyd ( 1996) will be required.

Post application incidental oral exposure to adults and children may be anticipated from swallowing swimming pool water containing sodium tetraborate pentahydrate from products which may be applied to both swimming pools and spas. A range of maximum application rates were reported from the product labels. The rates reported were 4.5 lb ai per 1,000 gallons ( 540 mg/ L pool water concentration), 4 lb ai per 1,000 gallons ( 480 mg/ L pool water concentration), 10 and 2 lb ai per 1,000 gallons ( 240 mg/ L). These products are all designed to reduce algae growth in swimming pool water. Also boric acid use as an inert ingredient resulted in spa/ pool water maximum pool water concentrations of 5.4 mg/ L. Exposure to adult and older child swimmers did not result in risks which exceed the LOC; however, the higher boron concentrations in pool and spa water resulted in risks for children 7 to 10 years of age which do exceed the LOC. The values are listed in Table 5.

Table 5. Post application Exposures to Non Competitive Child ( 7 to 10 year old) Swimmers Scenario Chemical concentration in water ( mg/ L) Adjusted ADD ( mg/ kg/ day) MOE 540 0.134 65 480 0.119 74 240 0.059 150 Incidental oral exposure while swimming.

5.4 0.0016 5,600 For inert uses, such as laundry detergent and general purpose cleaners, the residential exposures were calculated and the risks were not of concern for children ( e. g., MOE

16,000). The use of other products containing boric acid and its sodium salts as inert ingredients were also examined; however, many of the scenarios were identical to that of the active ingredient. Thus, those active scenarios which were not a risk concern for the actives were also determined not to be a risk concern for the inerts because the concentration was much less.

F. Incident Reports For a complete discussion, see the following documents:   Section 5 of the Boric Acid/ Sodium Borate Salts: HED Chapter of the Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decision Document by L. Hansen and J. Evans dated 6/ 26/ 06.   Review of Boric Acid Incident Reports ( DP320914) dated 9/ 22/ 05.

EPA reviewed the available incident data from the OPP Incident Data System ( IDS), Poison Control Centers ( PCCs), California Department of Pesticide Regulation, National Pesticide Information Center ( NPIC), and NIOSH. In summary, from 1984 1991, NPIC reports that boric acid ranked 25th on the list of the top 200 chemicals which NPIC received calls. OPP has tracked PCC data from 1993 to 2003. The PCC has reported that the largest number of incidents were related to children, with children under six years of age comprising over 80% of the incidents reported. The most common symptoms included vomiting, eye irritation, coughing, difficulty breathing nausea, and oral irritation. Several incidents were the 11 result of improper applications of carpet and crack and crevice uses. Inadvertent exposure of infants and small children to boric acid seldom produces a moderate or severe risk and lifethreatening incidents are rare; however, ingestions of substantial amounts pose serious risks.

G. Aggregate Risk In examining aggregate exposure, EPA takes into account the available and reliable information concerning exposures to pesticide residues in food and drinking water, and nonoccupational pesticide exposures. A risk assessment was not conducted for boric acid/ sodium borate salts to characterize the risk from dietary intake ( food and drinking water). An aggregate assessment was not considered necessary for the different residential uses since the Agency believes it is unlikely that indoor and outdoor uses will co occur. The carpet treatment is for fleas, the crack and crevice treatments are for ants and cockroaches and the in situ deck treatments are for termites. A homeowner is not likely to treat for three different pests at the same time. In addition, the swimming pool exposures were assessed for a different age group ( 7 years to adult) than for the incidental oral exposure from hand tomouth intake ( toddler) and would therefore not be combined.

III. Regulatory Decision A. FQPA Assessment Supporting Tolerance Reassessment Decision The Agency has reassessed the current exemptions from the requirement for tolerances from boric acid/ sodium borate salts ( see Table 6 for tolerance exemptions). As a result of this assessment, the Agency determined that the active tolerances exemptions should be maintained and are considered reassessed as safe under section 408( q) of the FFDCA. It should be noted however that the higher application rates for the swimming pool uses resulted in residential post application scenarios which exceed the Agency's LOC. The high rates for these pool and spa uses must be deleted from the end use product labels. Registrants have agreed to amend their labels by removing the higher application rates to Agency acceptable levels.

Taking into consideration the available information on all uses; including the inert ingredient uses, of boric acid, sodium metaborate, and sodium tetraborate, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm to any population subgroup will result from aggregate exposure when considering dietary exposure and all other remaining non occupational sources of pesticide exposure for which there is reliable information. Therefore, the three exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance established for residues of boric acid, sodium metraborate, and sodium tetraborate in/ on raw agricultural commodities under 40 CFR § 180.920 and the exemptions for tolerances established for the boric acid/ sodium borate salts under 40 CFR § 180.1121 are considered reassessed as safe under section 408( q) of the FFDCA. 12 The Agency has conducted risk assessments to ensure that the boric acid/ sodium borate salts meet the safety standards established by FFDCA, as amended by FQPA. These recent risk assessments for boric acid/ sodium borate salts include evaluation of potential susceptibility to infants and children to aggregate risk from residential uses.

Table 6: Tolerance Exemptions for Boric Acid/ Sodium Borate Salts Chemical Name and CAS Nos. PC Code Use Pattern Under 40 CFR 180.1121 Boric Acid: 10043 35 3 11113 50 1 41685 84 1 011001 Acaricide, algaecide, fungicide, herbicide, insecticide Sodium tetraborate decahydrate: 1303 96 4 12447 40 4 011102 Fungicide, insecticide, herbicide Sodium tetraborate pentahydrate: 11130 12 04 12178 04 3 011110 Algaecide, herbicide, insecticide Sodium tetraborate: 1330 43 4 12007 42 0 011112 Acaricide, herbicide, insecticide Disodium octaborate tetrahydrate: 12008 41 2 12280 03 4 011103 Fungicide, insecticide Disodium octaborate: 12008 41 2 12280 03 4 011107 Fungicide Sodium metaborate: 15293 77 3 7775 19 1 011104 Herbicide Under 40 CFR 180.920 Boric Acid: 10043 35 3 11113 50 1 011001 Sequestrant Sodium tetraborate: 1330 43 4 011102 Buffering Agent; corrosion inhibitor Sodium metaborate: 7775 19 1 011104 Sequestrant In reaching this determination, the Agency has considered the available information on the potential sensitivity of infants and children. Although boric acid/ sodium borate salts are registered for use on food/ feed crops, dietary or drinking water risk assessments were not necessary. For residential uses, the Agency conducted handler and postapplication assessments. Handler risks were below the Agency's LOC. Post application exposures were 13 above the LOC for swimming pool treatments at rates above 240 mg/ L. The higher swimming pool application rates must be deleted from the end use product labels. Therefore, the Agency has made a safety finding for the boric acid tolerance exemptions.

B. Cumulative Risk FQPA requires that EPA consider available information concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and " other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity." The Agency considers other substances because low level exposures to multiple chemical substances that cause a common toxic effect by a common mechanism could lead to the same adverse health effect, as would a higher level of exposure to any of the substances individually. Risks summarized in this document are those that result only from the use of boric acid/ sodium borate salts. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to boric acid/ sodium borate salts and any other substances. In addition, boric acid/ sodium borate salts does not produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances which have tolerances in the U. S. Therefore, for the purposes of tolerance reassessment, EPA has not assumed that boric acid/ sodium borate salts shares a common mechanism of toxicity with other compounds.

C. Endocrine Disruptor Effects EPA is required under the FFDCA as amended by FQPA, to develop a screening program to determine whether certain substances " may have an effect in humans that is similar to endocrine effects." The potential for disruption of the endocrine system by boric acid/ sodium borate salts is not known at this time. Boric acid and sodium borate salts are known to inhibit spermiation in multiple species. Studies indicate that at high dose levels, boric acid causes a mild reduction in basal serum testosterone levels in male rats and that this effect may be CNS mediated, based on lack of apparent effects on steroidogenic function on isolated Leydig cells. Fail, et al( 1998) have noted that boron is unlikely to act as an endocrine disruptor because the hormonal changes appear to be secondary to testicular cytotoxicity. However, the mechanism by which inhibition of spermiation, as well as effects on the ovary, occur in vivo have not been fully characterized. The NOAEL of 8.8 mg/ kg/ day chosen for the current risk assessment based on the effect of testicular atrophy is considered to be protective of effects caused by endocrine disruption. When additional appropriate screening and/ or testing protocols being considered under the Agency's Endocrine Disruption Screening Program ( EDSP) have been developed, boric acid/ sodium borate salts may be subjected to further screening and/ or testing to better characterize effects related to endocrine disruption. 14 D. Risk Mitigation A risk assessment was conducted for exposures to boric acid/ sodium borate salts resulting from inert and pesticidal exposures of boric acid and borate salts, and the Agency has determined that the human health risks from these combined exposures are within acceptable levels for most uses.

Sodium borate applications to swimming pools and spas resulted in unacceptable risks for some of the higher boron concentrations in pool water ( e. g., concentration in water of 480 mg/ L and 540 mg/ L); however, the lower concentration of 240 mg/ L did not result in risks of concern. Therefore, the end use product labels for swimming pool products must be revised to delete application rates above 240 mg/ L. Registrants have agreed to amend their labels by removing the higher application rates to Agency acceptable levels.

E. Data Needs Additional exposure data in accordance with Series 875.2100 guidelines for dislodgeable surface residues in carpet, crack and crevice, and wood treatments are required to confirm our safety finding for these uses. The Agency will be issuing a DCI for these data.

IV. References Lake, M. A. and McIntyre, M. A. ( 2006) Formosan Termite Response to Weathered Borate Treated Wood: Paper given at the Forest Products Society Meeting in New Orleans, LA on March 2006.

Lloyd, J. D. ( 1996) Indicative Study of the Post In Situ Treatment Pick Up of Disodium Octaborate Tetrahdrate..

California Department of Pesticide Regulation ( CDPR) ( 1996). Memorandum from T. Formoli, Worker Health and Safety Branch, to Karen Fletcher. HSM 96004


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 17, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63729-63732]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25543]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2012-0738]
RIN 1625-AA00

Fixed and Moving Safety Zone; Around the USACE Bank Grading
Units, Mat Sinking Unit, and the M/V Harrison and M/V William James

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary fixed and moving
safety zone for all waters within 100 yards of the US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) Bank Grading Units, Mat Sinking Unit and M/V Harrison
and M/V William James while operating on the Mississippi River. This
safety zone is needed to protect vessels and mariners from the safety
hazards associated with bank grading and mat sinking operations
performed by the USACE. Entry into this zone is prohibited unless
specifically authorized by the cognizant Captain of the Port (COTP)
(COTP Lower Mississippi River for MM 303.0 to MM 869.0 or COTP Ohio
Valley MM 869.0 to MM 958.0) or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective with actual notice from July 31, 2012
until October 17, 2012. This rule is effective in the Code of Federal
Regulations from October 17, 2012 until 8:00 a.m. November 1, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2012-0738. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email CWO David Bear, U. S. Coast Guard; telephone 901-521-
4728, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
M/V Motor Vessel
COTP Captain of the Port
MM Mile Marker
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule as publication of an NPRM would be
impracticable. The Coast Guard received notification from the USACE on
or about July 13, 2012 about necessary bank grading and mat laying
operations by the Vicksburg District USACE.
    For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard
finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than
30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Providing a full 30
days notice before the final rule effective date is would be
impracticable for the reasons described above. Immediate action
implementing this safety zone is needed to protect persons and property
from the safety hazards associated with bank grading and mat sinking
operations on the Mississippi River.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33
U.S.C. 1231, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33
CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064;
and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which
collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define
regulatory safety zones.
    The COTPs Lower Mississippi River and Ohio Valley received
notification from the USACE that the USACE will be performing bank
grading and mat sinking operations on the Mississippi River. These
operations are vital in maintaining a navigable channel for commerce to
operate on the river and can only be done during certain times of the
year, and under specific water levels and conditions. The fact that the
operations are taking place on a highly transited waterway presents
hazards to both the waterway traffic and the workers involved in the
operations. A fixed and moving safety zone is needed to protect
mariners, workers, vessels and other property from the hazards
associated with bank grading and mat laying operations. Additionally, a
fixed and moving safety zone will assist in timely completion of the
USACE operations.
    The USACE also requested that the Coast Guard implement a safety
zone restricting traffic on the waterway to protect both mariners and
persons involved in the operations, specifically the Bank Grading
Units, Mat Sinking Unit, and the M/V Harrison and M/V William James and
any other operating units. The USACE informed the USCG that during the
effective period, USACE operations will require waterway closures
lasting approximately one hour at a time when no traffic will be
allowed to transit within 500 yards of the operations. Broadcast
Notices to Mariners (BNM) and Marine Safety Information Bulletins
(MSIBs) can be issued by the Coast Guard to inform marine traffic of
these times based on notice provided by the USACE.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary fixed and moving safety
zone for all waters within 100 yards of the USACE Bank Grading Unit,
Mat Sinking Unit, and the M/V Harrison and M/V William James while
conducting operations on the Mississippi River. This safety zone is
intended to protect persons and property, providing the necessary
safety measures affording the USACE to continue with ongoing and timely
USACE operations necessary to maintain the commercial channel for the
designated areas on the Mississippi River. While these operations are
taking place, vessels are required to operate at a minimum safe speed
when transiting within all waters encompassing a 100 yard radius around
the USACE operating units and vessels are prohibited from transiting
into, through, or within a 50 yard radius of the USACE operating units
and vessels, unless specifically authorized as explained below.
Anchoring, stopping, remaining or drifting without power within the
safety zone is prohibited at all times.
    Requests to deviate from these restrictions may be made to the
applicable COTP and will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The
COTP Lower Mississippi River may be contacted by telephone at 866-777-
2784. The COTP Ohio Valley may be contacted at 1-800-253-7465. All
COTPs can be reached by VHF-FM channel 16. The respective Captain of
the Port or a designated representative will inform the public through
broadcast notice to mariners of the location of the Bank Grading Units,
Mat Sinking Unit and the M/V Harrison and M/V William James effective
period for the safety zone and of any changes in the effective period
for the safety zone. This rule is effective from August 2, 2012 through
8 a.m. November 1, 2012, local time. If emergency dredging is completed
earlier, enforcement of the safety zone will be curtailed.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    This regulation is not a significant regulatory action because it
will only be in effect for limited periods of time and will not
substantially obstruct maritime traffic. Notifications to the marine
community will be made through broadcast notice to mariners and
electronic mail. Notices of changes to the safety zone and effective
times will also be made. Deviation from the restrictions may be
requested from the COTP or designated representative and will be
considered on a case-by-case basis. The impacts on routine navigation
are expected to be minimal.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the

potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit the Mississippi River, effective from August 2, 2012 through
November 1, 2012, local time. This safety zone will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
because this rule allows for the passing of vessels. Traffic in this
area is limited to almost entirely recreational vessels and commercial
towing vessels. Notifications to the marine community will be made
through broadcast notice to mariners and electronic mail. Notices of
changes to the safety zone and effective times will also be made.
Deviation from the restrictions may be requested from the COTP or
designated representative and will be considered on a case-by-case
basis.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the 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 the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This 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.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
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.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule is categorically excluded from further review
under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination will be made available as indicated under the ADDRESSES
section.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0738 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0738  Fixed and Moving Safety Zone; Around the USACE Bank
Grading Units, Mat Sinking Units and the M/V Harrison and M/V William
James.

    (a) Location. The following area is a fixed and moving safety zone:
All waters of the Mississippi River within 100 yards of the Bank
Grading Units, Mat Sinking Unit and the M/V Harrison and M/V William
James.
    (b) Effective dates. This section is effective from 6 a.m. July 31,
2012 through 8 a.m. November 1, 2012, local time.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the COTP Lower Mississippi River, COTP Ohio Valley or a
designated representative.
    (2) Vessels shall not enter the moving safety zone.
    (3) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the
zone must request permission from the COTP Lower Mississippi River,
COTP Ohio Valley or a designated representative. They may be contacted
on VHF-FM channels 16 or The COTP Lower Mississippi River may be
contacted by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. The COTP Ohio Valley may be
contacted at 1-800-253-7465.
    (4) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the COTP Lower Mississippi River, COTP Ohio Valley and designated
personnel. Designated personnel include commissioned, warrant, petty
officers of the U.S. Coast Guard and Government employees of the US
Army Corps of Engineers.
    (5) Minimum speed will be required of all vessels transiting within
50 yards of the moving safety zone. Vessels receiving Captain of the
Port authority to enter the safety zone must also transit at a minimum
safe speed and in accordance with the direction of the Captain of the
Port authorizing transit.
    (6) No vessel shall anchor, stop, remain or drift without power at
anytime in the moving safety zone.
    (d) Informational broadcasts. The Captain of the Port, Lower
Mississippi River or a designated representative will inform the public
through broadcast notices to mariners (BNM) of the effective period for
the safety zone and of any changes in the effective period or size of
the safety zone.

    Dated: August 2, 2012.
W. M. Drelling,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lower Mississippi.
L. W. Hewett,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2012-25543 Filed 10-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 176 (Thursday, September 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55928-55934]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19977]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0346]

Proposed Pilot Program To Allow Persons Ages 18, 19, and 20 To
Operate Commercial Motor Vehicles in Interstate Commerce

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed pilot program; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: On May 15, 2019, FMCSA published a Federal Register notice
requesting public comments on a possible new pilot program to allow
drivers aged 18, 19, and 20 to operate commercial motor vehicles in
interstate commerce. The May 2019 notice asked specific questions
regarding training; qualifications; driving limitations; operational
and participation requirements; insurance; research and data; and
vehicle safety systems that should be considered in developing a second
pilot program for younger drivers. This notice addresses the comments
received and proposes a pilot program to allow 18-, 19-, and 20-year-
old drivers to operate commercial motor vehicles in interstate
commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 9, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this notice identified by docket
number FMCSA-2018-0346 using any one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Operations, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building,

Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without
change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform
its rulemaking and pilot program process. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records
notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Nikki McDavid, Commercial Driver's
License Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(202) 366-0831. If you have questions about viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call DOT Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials. In this notice, FMCSA requests certain information,
but comments are not limited to responses to those requests.

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2018-0346), indicate the specific section of this
document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online, by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of
these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing
address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your
document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to www.regulations.gov, put the
docket number, ``FMCSA-2018-0346'' in the ``Keyword'' box, and click
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on the ``Comment Now!''
button and type your comment into the text box in the following screen.
Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on
behalf of a third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. FMCSA will consider all comments
and material received during the comment period.
    Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business
Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both
customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the
Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this notice contain
commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as
private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or
responsive to this notice, it is important that you clearly designate
the submitted comments as CBI. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions
as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not
be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking. Please mark each
page of your submission that constitutes CBI as ``PROPIN'' to indicate
it contains proprietary information. Submissions containing CBI should
be sent to Mr. Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Analysis Division,
FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Any comments
FMCSA receives that are not specifically designated as CBI will be
placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may make changes based on your comments.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this notice as
being available in the docket, go to www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number, ``FMCSA-2018-0346'' in the ``Keyword'' box and click
``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose
the document listed to review. If you do not have access to the
internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Docket Operations
in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

II. Legal Basis

    The Secretary of Transportation has authority under 49 U.S.C.
31315(c) to conduct pilot programs and to allow one or more exemptions
for the testing of innovative alternatives to certain Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) (Sec.  31315(c)(1)). The regulatory
standards for pilot programs are codified at 49 CFR part 381, subparts
D and E.
    FMCSA must publish in the Federal Register a detailed description
of each pilot program, including the exemptions being considered, and
provide notice and an opportunity for public comment before the
effective date of the program. The Agency is required to ensure that
the safety measures in the pilot programs are designed to achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of
safety that would be achieved through compliance with the safety
regulations. The maximum duration of pilot programs is 3 years from the
starting date.
    In the May 9, 2011, final rule on ``Commercial Driver's License
Testing and Commercial Learner's Permit Standards'' (76 FR 26854), the
Agency set a minimum age of 18 for an individual to obtain a commercial
learner's permit (CLP) prior to obtaining a commercial driver's license
(CDL) (49 CFR 383.25(a)(4)).
    Drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs), as defined in 49 CFR
383.5 and 390.5T, engaged in interstate commerce, must be at least 21
years of age (Sec.  391.11(b)(1)). An 18-year-old CLP or CDL holder may
drive in intrastate commerce only.
    The proposed pilot program would provide participating drivers with
relief from sections of 49 CFR parts 383 and 391 concerning minimum age
requirements. In addition, this pilot program would provide relief from
the effect of the intrastate only (or ``K'') restriction that appears
on a CDL at Sec.  383.153(a)(10)(vii) and an exemption from the
requirement in Sec.  391.11(b)(1) that a CMV driver operating in
interstate commerce be at least 21 years of age.
    At the conclusion of each pilot program, FMCSA must report to
Congress its findings, conclusions, and recommendations, including
suggested amendments to laws and regulations, to include lowering the
minimum driving age of interstate drivers, that would enhance motor
carrier, CMV, and driver safety, and improve compliance with the
FMCSRs.

III. Background

    As documented in the May 15, 2019, Federal Register notice (84 FR
21895), changing the driving age has been studied by various
organizations and previously proposed by the Federal Highway
Administration, FMCSA's predecessor agency. FMCSA received specific
direction to conduct a limited pilot program in section 5404 of the
Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) (Pub. L. 114-94,
129 Stat. 1312, 1549, Dec. 4, 2015).

Military Under-21 Pilot Program

    On August 22, 2016, FMCSA proposed a pilot program to meet the
requirements of section 5404 of the FAST Act and allow a limited number
of individuals ages 18, 19, and 20 to operate CMVs in interstate
commerce, if they received specified heavy-vehicle driver training
while in military service and were hired by a participating motor
carrier (81 FR 56745). In addition, the Agency asked specific questions
and requested comments on the proposed pilot program. During this pilot
program, the safety records of these younger drivers (the study group)
would be compared to the records of a control group of comparable size,
comprised of drivers who are between 21 and 24 years old and who have
comparable training and experience in driving vehicles requiring a CDL.
The comparison of the two groups' performance would help to determine
whether the age difference was a critical safety factor.
    In response to comments received on the August 22, 2016, proposal,
FMCSA published a Federal Register notice on July 6, 2018, titled,
``Pilot Program to Allow Persons Between the Ages of 18 and 21 With
Military Driving Experience to Operate Commercial Motor Vehicles in
Interstate Commerce'' (83 FR 31633). This pilot program is currently
underway, and its results will be reported not later than 1 year after
the pilot program concludes.

Entry Level Driver Training

    On December 8, 2016, FMCSA published a final rule titled ``Minimum
Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial Motor Vehicle
Operators'' (81 FR 88732). This rule was required by section 32304 of
the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, Public Law 112-
141, see 49 U.S.C. 31305(c), and was the result of a negotiated
rulemaking. The rule on entry-level driver training (ELDT) established
minimum training standards for certain individuals applying for their
CDL. CDL applicants subject to the rule must complete a prescribed
program of instruction presented by an entity listed on FMCSA's
Training Provider Registry, prior to taking the State-administered CDL
skills test, or, for the Hazardous Materials endorsement, prior to
taking the knowledge test. The final rule outlined the topics that must
be covered during classroom and behind-the-wheel training; however, it
did not require a minimum number of hours for either classroom or
behind-the-wheel training.
    On February 4, 2020, FMCSA published an interim final rule titled
``Extension of Compliance Date for Entry-Level Driver Training'' (84 FR
6088). The rule amended the compliance date from February 7, 2020, to
February 7, 2022; however, it did not change the minimum training
standards for certain individuals applying for their CDL.

Recent Legislative Proposals

    On February 27, 2019, companion bills were introduced in the U.S.
House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate called the ``Developing
Responsible Individuals for a Vibrant Economy Act'' (DRIVE-Safe Act)
(H.R. 1374), which proposed to lower the age requirement for interstate
drivers to 18, as long as drivers under the age of 21 participated in
an apprenticeship program. The apprenticeship would include separate
120-hour and 280-hour probationary periods, during which younger
drivers would operate CMVs under the supervision of an experienced
driver and must achieve specific performance benchmarks before
advancing. Under the proposal, study group participants would also
drive vehicles equipped with active-braking collision mitigation
systems, forward-facing video event capture, and speed limiters set to
65 miles per hour. To date, the DRIVE-Safe Act has not been enacted.

IV. Discussion of Comments and Responses on the Notice of Proposed
Pilot Program

    In the May 15, 2019 Federal Register notice, FMCSA requested
comments on the training and experience, operational requirements,
participation requirements, technology requirements, insurance
requirements, and research and data that FMCSA should consider in
developing options or approaches for a second pilot program for younger
drivers.
    FMCSA received 1,118 comments to the docket; 504 commenters favored
the proposal, while 486 opposed it. Other commenters offered
conditional support, provided responses to the questions posed in the
notice, or offered other suggestions. More than 1,000 individuals and
95 organizations commented. FMCSA received more than 750 unique
comments, while the remaining comments were form letters (four types)
in support of the pilot program or urging FMCSA to initiate a pilot
program focused on short-haul drivers operating within a certain air-
mile radius or in accordance with the proposed DRIVE-Safe Act.
    The organizations that favored the pilot program included the
Agricultural Retailers Association, American Bakers Association,
Arkansas State Highway Commission, American Trucking Associations
(ATA), Commercial Vehicle Training Association, DriverReach, Hudson
Insurance Group, Intermodal Association of North America, International
Association of Movers, International Foodservice Distributors
Association, International Franchise Association, National Association
of Publicly Funded Truck Driving Schools, National Interstate
Insurance, National Propane Gas Association, National Ready Mixed
Concrete Association, National Retail Federation (NRF), National Tank
Truck Carriers, Towing and Recovery Association of America, and
Truckload Carriers Association (TCA). In addition, numerous private
citizens, motor carriers, training schools, State trucking
associations, logistics companies, risk assessment companies,
information technology companies, and other professional trade
associations offered full or conditional support for the initiation of
a younger driver pilot program.
    Commenters including the American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators (AAMVA), Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, Greyhound
Bus Company, Inc., International Brotherhood of Teamsters, National
Safety Council, Oregon Department of Transportation, United Motorcoach
Association (UMA), and several motor carriers, private citizens, and
other professional trade associations asked for clarification, provided
data, and offered recommendations.
    Those opposing the initiation of a younger driver pilot program
included Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), Citizens
for Reliable and Safe Highways, Governors Highway Safety Association,
the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS), the Owner-Operator
Independent Drivers Association, Parents Against Tired Truckers, the
Trucking Alliance, and several private citizens, motor carriers, and
other professional trade associations. These opponents focused on
safety, noting that truck and bus crashes, injuries, and fatalities
continue

to rise, and that drivers 18 to 20 years old are overrepresented in
crashes.
    In addition, opponents also mentioned that the Agency has not
analyzed data from the States that could provide information on the
safety records of 18- to 20-year-old drivers who currently operate in
intrastate commerce. Some argued that the Agency should complete the
Under-21 Military CDL driver pilot program and analyze that data before
initiating this pilot program.

Training and Experience

    The 2019 Federal Register notice asked several questions related to
the training and experience that a younger driver should be required to
have to participate. Several commenters, including Advocates and UMA,
believe that the drivers should have extensive experience operating a
CMV to ensure public safety. The length of experience suggested by
AAMVA, NRF, and UMA, for example, ranged from 1 to 2 years, while
others, such as ATA, DriverReach, and TCA, did not believe any
experience was necessary since the drivers would be subject to the
minimum training requirements of the ELDT rule.
    Some commenters believe that drivers aged 18 to 20 should be
required to be supervised by a qualified trainer physically present at
all times, or for a limited period (e.g., for 6 months), while
operating a CMV on public roads. As for training, commenters cited the
training required by the proposed DRIVE-Safe Act, the CLP standards in
49 CFR part 383, and the ELDT rule.

Operational Requirements

    The majority of commenters agreed that younger drivers should drive
fewer hours than are currently permitted in the regulations. However,
ATA and TCA believe that no limitations should be placed on younger
drivers since they currently operate in intrastate commerce without any
time or distance restrictions. In addition, ATA cited the FMCSA-
sponsored Large Truck Crash Causation study which found that only 28
percent of large truck crashes occurred between 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
There was no consensus among commenters on whether to prohibit drivers
from transporting hazardous materials, passengers, and/or operating
tank trucks or special configuration vehicles.

Participation Requirements

    The 2019 Federal Register notice asked what requirements motor
carriers and drivers should be required to meet to participate in a
younger driver pilot program. The majority of commenters believed the
qualification standards established for FMCSA's Under-21 Military CDL
Pilot Program were sufficient, while others believed the previously
proposed DRIVE-Safe Act should be the minimum requirements for
participation in a younger driver pilot program.

Technology Requirements

    The 2019 notice asked what safety equipment or on-board recording
systems should be required, mentioning automatic manual or automatic
transmissions; active-braking collision mitigation systems; forward-
facing video event capture; and speed limiters set to 65 miles per
hour.
    All commenters who responded to these questions supported the use
of safety technology on vehicles operated by younger drivers. Some
commenters proposed additional requirements, including adaptive cruise
control, artificial intelligence, automatic emergency braking, Global
Positioning Systems, lane centering, lane departure warning systems,
and on-board rear-facing video event recorders.

Insurance

    FMCSA asked for information on the ability of motor carriers to
secure insurance for 18- to 20-year-old drivers. ATA felt that there
would be no insurance problems, noting that trucking companies must
currently obtain insurance for drivers under the age of 21 who operate
in intrastate commerce. ATA said its membership includes 19 insurance
companies and that they have expressed a willingness to work with motor
carriers to offer insurance coverage for 18- to 20-year-old interstate
drivers. The Hudson Insurance Group responded to this question and
noted that training, retraining, and driver development are more
critical than a driver's age and experience.
    Of the insurance companies that provided comments to the docket,
Hudson Insurance Group and National Interstate Insurance expressed
their willingness to insure companies that are approved to participate
in a younger driver pilot program. Other commenters recognized that
self-insured motor carriers would be willing and able to participate in
a younger driver pilot program.

Research and Data

    The 2019 Federal Register requested research and data to evaluate
the safety performance of drivers under 21 years of age. Specifically,
FMCSA asked if data on traffic violations, crashes, and inspection
violations were adequate to allow a comparison of the safety records of
younger and older drivers; and what research the Agency should consider
to assess the safety impacts of younger interstate CMV drivers.
    Regarding the data available on the safety performance of 18- to
20-year-old drivers, commenters to this rule offered several
suggestions. Advocates, ATA, IIHS, and TCA provided several examples of
available data. As sources of safety performance data for 18- to 20-
year-old drivers, commenters cited the Fatality Analysis Reporting
System (FARS); the Trucks Involved in Fatal Accidents data; several
studies, including the Governors Highway Safety Association study on
teen driving; the National Transportation Safety Board's (NTSB) 2019-
2020 Most Wanted List of safety changes; State intrastate data; the
Agency's Under-21 Military CDL Pilot Program; and other data systems.
Further, ATA presented comparison data from 18- to 20-year-old
intrastate drivers in several States and data from drivers ages 21
years or older.
    The data and research that commenters cited provided contradictory
information on the safety of 18- to 20-year-old drivers.
    ATA cited NHTSA's annual report titled ``Traffic Safety Facts: A
Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data.'' According to the report, in
the 6 years studied (2012-2017), male drivers in the 16 to 20 age range
had a lower involvement rate in fatal crashes than male drivers in the
21 to 24 age range. For example, during 2017, the male driver
involvement rate in fatal crashes per 100,000 licensed drivers was
49.02 for drivers aged 16 to 20, and 50.32 for drivers aged 21 to 24.
In addition, the intrastate data from 13 States shows that in 12 of the
13 States, 18- to 20-year-old CDL holders had crash rates that were on
the whole lower than, or at worst, functionally equivalent to, that of
their 21- to 24-year-old counterparts.
    The IIHS analyzed the 2017 FARS data for drivers aged 18 and 19.
The data shows that these drivers are 2.3 times more likely than
drivers aged 20 and older to be in a fatal crash and nearly 3.5 times
more likely to be involved in any police-reported crash. In addition,
the IIHS cited the Governors Highway Safety Association study titled,
``Mission Not Accomplished: Teen Safe Driving, the Next Chapter.'' The
study indicated that 19-year-olds accounted for the greatest number of
teen drivers killed during the study period, followed by 20- and 18-
year-olds.
    Without recreating the report or analysis, FMCSA believes the

differences between the NHTSA Report and IIHS' analysis can be
attributed to the different age groups studied and the fact that the
NHTSA Report took into account data over a 6 year period, whereas IIHS
analyzed 1 year of FARS data.
    Commenters generally agreed that traffic violations, crashes, and
inspection violations were adequate standards with which to compare the
safety records of drivers, but cautioned against using indicators of
violations, such as parking tickets, that are not indicative of unsafe
driving behavior. Several commenters believe that FMCSA must conduct
this pilot program to collect the needed data to determine the safety
impacts of younger drivers operating in interstate commerce.

V. Pilot Program Proposal

    Using the input from commenters to the 2019 Federal Register
notice, FMCSA proposes the following structure for a new pilot program
for younger drivers. The Agency seeks feedback on the details of this
specific proposal.

Participant Age and Experience for Study Group Drivers

    FMCSA proposes to allow drivers to participate in a younger driver
pilot program if they fall within one of the following categories.
    Category One: FMCSA proposes to allow 18- to 20-year-old CDL
holders to operate CMVs in interstate commerce while taking part in a
120-hour probationary period and a subsequent 280-hour probationary
period under an apprenticeship program established by an employer, as
introduced in the DRIVE-Safe Act. The 120-hour probationary period
would include 120 hours of on-duty time, with at least 80 hours of
driving time in a CMV. In order to complete the 120-hour probationary
period, the employer must make sure the younger driver is competent in
each of the following areas: Interstate, city traffic, rural 2-lane,
and evening driving; safety awareness; speed and space management; lane
control; mirror scanning; right and left turns; and logging and
complying with rules relating to hours of service. The 280-hour
probationary period would include 280 hours of on-duty time, with at
least 160 hours of driving time in a CMV. In order to complete the 280-
hour probationary period, an employer must ensure that the younger
driver is competent in each of the following areas: Backing and
maneuvering in close quarters; pre-trip inspections; fueling
procedures; weighing loads, weight distribution, and sliding tandems;
coupling and uncoupling procedures; and trip planning, truck routes,
map reading, navigation, and permits. Driver training and
apprenticeship programs have been proven to provide valuable driving
experience; to reduce recklessness; to help prepare the driver for
real-life driving situations that he or she may experience on the road;
and identify and correct poor driving behaviors. Through this
probationary program, the Agency believes these drivers will obtain the
necessary experience skills to operate safety in interstate commerce.
Forty-eight States and the District of Columbia already allow 18- to
20-year-old CDL holders to operate CMVs in intrastate commerce.
    Category Two: FMCSA proposes to permit 19- and 20-year-old
commercial drivers who have operated CMVs in intrastate commerce for a
minimum of 1 year and 25,000 miles to participate in the younger driver
CDL pilot program. The Agency believes these drivers have the requisite
experience to operate safely, assuming they meet certain safety
performance standards; and therefore, would not be required to complete
any probationary periods. Forty-nine States and the District of
Columbia already allow 19- and 20-year-old CDL holders to operate CMVs
in intrastate commerce.
    To have a statistically valid sample, approximately 200 drivers
aged 18, 19 and 20 are needed. When these individuals reach the age of
21, they would no longer participate in the pilot program and would be
have to be replaced by additional 18-, 19- and 20- year-old drivers by
the motor carriers. FMCSA may continue to track the safety records of
study group drivers who continue to drive for participating motor
carriers when they are 21 or older.

Driving Limitations for Study Group Drivers

    FMCSA proposes to limit the types of vehicles a driver in the pilot
program may operate. Consistent with the limitations FMCSA established
in the Under-21 Military CDL Pilot Program, study group drivers would
not be allowed to operate vehicles hauling passengers or hazardous
materials or special configuration vehicles (e.g., doubles, triples,
cargo tanks).

Training and Experience Requirements for Study Group Drivers

    In keeping with the Agency's ELDT final rule, FMCSA proposes to
require study group drivers to have taken CDL training that meets the
ELDT rule standards before obtaining their CDL. This will ensure that
drivers admitted to the younger driver CDL pilot program have minimum
training and sufficient experience necessary to operate safely on our
Nation's highways.

Other Study Group Driver Requirements

    To participate in the pilot program, FMCSA proposes that the study
group driver be required to complete an application. In addition, the
study group driver must have no disqualifications, suspensions, or
license revocations within the past 2 years and not be under any out-
of-service (OOS) order. To qualify as a study group participant, the
driver must not have:
    1. Had more than one license;
    2. Had his or her intrastate CDL suspended, revoked, cancelled, or
disqualified for a violation related to 49 CFR 383.51 in the home State
of record or any State;
    3. Had any conviction for a violation of State or local law
relating to motor vehicle traffic control (other than a parking
violation) arising in connection with any traffic crash and have no
record of a crash in which he or she was at fault;
    4. Been convicted of any of the following violations while
operating a motor vehicle; or
    [cir] Been under the influence of alcohol as prescribed by State
law;
    [cir] Been under the influence of a controlled substance;
    [cir] Had an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or greater while
operating a CMV;
    [cir] Refused to take an alcohol test as required by a State under
its implied consent laws or regulations as defined in 49 CFR 383.72;
    [cir] Left the scene of a crash;
    [cir] Used the vehicle to commit a felony;
    [cir] Driven a CMV while his or her intrastate CDL or other license
was revoked, suspended, or cancelled or while he or she was
disqualified from operating a CMV; or
    [cir] Caused a fatality through the negligent operation of a CMV
(including motor vehicle manslaughter, homicide by motor vehicle, or
negligent homicide).
    5. Had more than one conviction for any of the violations described
below in any type of motor vehicle:
    [cir] Driving recklessly, as defined by State or local law or
regulation (including offenses of driving a motor vehicle in willful or
wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property);
    [cir] Driving a CMV without obtaining a CDL;
    [cir] Violating a State or local law or ordinance on motor vehicle
traffic control prohibiting texting while driving; or

    [cir] Violating a State or local law or ordinance on motor vehicle
traffic control restricting or prohibiting the use of a hand held
mobile telephone while driving.
    To stay in the pilot program, the younger drivers would be required
to agree to the release of specific information to FMCSA for purposes
of the pilot program; meet all FMCSR requirements (except age) for
operating a CMV in interstate commerce; operate primarily in interstate
commerce; and, if selected; maintain a good driving record (e.g., free
of any Sec.  383.51 violations). A driver may be removed from the pilot
program if he or she is disqualified for a major offense, serious
traffic violation, railroad-highway grade crossing, or violation of an
OOS order, as outlined in Sec.  383.51 of the FMCSRs.

Vehicle Safety Technology for Study Group Drivers

    Vehicle safety technology continues to increase and FMCSA
recognizes the value of these systems. These tools can help prevent, or
significantly reduce the number and severity of, crashes on our
Nation's highways. FMCSA is proposing to require the following vehicle
safety technologies on the CMVs operated by the study group drivers:
Active-braking collision mitigation systems; forward-facing video event
recorders; and automatic or automatic-manual transmissions; and speed
limiters set to 65 miles per hour. FMCSA believes that requiring these
technologies on the CMVs operated by younger drivers will assist in
preventing crashes. As an added benefit, FMCSA will be able to analyze
the data received from these technologies to determine if one safety
feature is more beneficial to safety.
    Although not required, FMCSA would also prioritize approval of
those motor carriers that equip their vehicles with additional
technologies, such as various collision avoidance systems, lane
centering, etc.

Control Group Drivers

    A control group of older drivers is needed to form a baseline of
comparison for the safety records of the younger study group drivers.
The control group participants would be between 21 and 24 years of age.
These control group drivers would work for the participating carriers.

Motor Carrier Qualification Requirements

    To qualify for participation, a motor carrier would have to meet
the following minimum standards, which match the minimum standards of
the Under-21 Military CDL Pilot:
    1. Have proper operating authority registration, if required, and
USDOT number;
    2. Have evidence of the minimum levels of financial responsibility;
    3. Not be a high or moderate risk motor carrier as defined in the
Agency's Federal Register notice titled, ``Notification of Changes to
the Definition of a High Risk Motor Carrier and Associated
Investigation'' published on March 7, 2016 (81 FR 11875);
    4. Not have a conditional or unsatisfactory safety rating;
    5. Not have any open enforcement actions based on an imminent
hazard OOS order (49 CFR 386.72) or a suspension or revocation based on
a pattern of safety violations (49 CFR part 385 Subpart K);
    6. Not have a crash rate above the national average;
    7. Not have a driver OOS rate above the national average; and
    8. Not have a vehicle OOS rate above the national average.
    In addition, unpaid civil penalties would be grounds to deny
participation in the pilot program.
    Throughout the pilot program, the motor carrier would be expected
to maintain an excellent safety record. Motor carriers may be
disqualified from the pilot program if the carrier:
    1. Does not have proper operating authority registration, where
required, and USDOT number;
    2. Does not have the minimum levels of financial responsibility;
    3. Is prioritized as a high risk;
    4. Is prioritized as a moderate risk for 2 consecutive months;
    5. Receives a conditional or unsatisfactory safety rating;
    6. Is the subject of an open Federal enforcement action based on an
imminent hazard OOS order (49 CFR 386.72) or a suspension or revocation
based on a pattern of safety violations (49 CFR part 385 Subpart K).
Enforcement actions resulting in civil penalties will be reviewed on a
case-by-case basis;
    7. Has a crash rate above the national average for 3 consecutive
months;
    8. Has a driver OOS rate above the national average for 3
consecutive months;
    9. Has a vehicle OOS rate above the national average for 3
consecutive months; or
    10. Fails to report monthly data as required.
    FMCSA would reserve the right to remove a carrier from the program
at its discretion if it is determined there is a safety risk.

Motor Carrier Application and Participation Requirements

    Carriers would be required to complete an application for
participation in the pilot program and submit monthly data on study
group and/or control group driver activity (e.g., vehicle miles
traveled, duty hours, driving hours, off-duty time, or breaks), safety
outcomes (e.g., crashes, violations, and safety-critical events) and
any additional supporting information (e.g., onboard monitoring systems
or investigative reports from previous crashes). In addition, carriers
would be required to notify FMCSA within 24 hours of: (1) Any injury or
fatal crash involving a participating study group pilot program driver;
(2) a study group driver receiving an alcohol-related citation (e.g.,
driving under the influence or driving while intoxicated); (3) a study
group driver choosing to leave the pilot program; (4) a study group
driver leaving the carrier; or (5) a study group driver failing a
random or post-crash drug/alcohol test.
    Carriers would be required to ensure drivers meet the requirements
to participate in a younger driver pilot program by establishing an
apprenticeship program that would mirror the requirements introduced in
the proposed DRIVE-Safe Act for study group drivers in group one;
ensuring study group drivers in group two meet the requisite
experience; and verifying that study group drivers meet all other
requirements to participate.
    FMCSA would gather additional safety data for all study and control
group drivers during the pilot program from the Motor Carrier
Management Information System (MCMIS), such as crashes and driving and
inspection violations.
    FMCSA would prioritize approval of carriers to participate and
continue based on these carriers' safety performance records over time,
selecting only those with the highest or best relative performance.
    Approved carriers would be publicly announced on the Agency's
website to encourage potential study group drivers to apply for
employment directly with the identified carriers. Approved carriers
would be able to assist study group drivers (whom they sponsor) with
completion of the application and participation agreement. When a
carrier receives notification that a study group driver has been
approved to operate in interstate commerce, the carrier would then
submit a form and agreement for a control group driver. In this manner,
the number of drivers in each group would be similar.

    The length of time during which replacement study group drivers
will be added will be determined by FMCSA based on the statistical and
administrative needs of the pilot data collection plan.
    FMCSA would adapt the applications, agreements, forms to be used by
interested carriers and potential study and control group drivers, and
plans it created for its Under 21 Military CDL Pilot Program for this
younger driver pilot program.
    In addition to the above requirements, FMCSA is proposing that each
motor carrier accepted into the pilot program must agree to comply with
all pilot program procedures and requirements, including completing
required forms, obtaining driver consent, and attending information
sessions.

Control Group Drivers

    Details of each requirement for control group drivers summarized
below would be published if the pilot program is approved. Control
group drivers would be required to:
     Agree to participate;
     Possess a valid CDL;
     Be a driver for participating motor carrier;
     Have no disqualifications, suspensions, or license
revocations within past 2 years; or be under any OOS order;
     Agree to release of specified information for the pilot
program;
     Have experience comparable to study group drivers; and
     Be 21 to 24 years old at time of acceptance into the
pilot.

VI. Data Collection Plan

    The factors to be collected from each participating driver before
and during the pilot program may include, but are not limited to: (1)
Details of any past CMV driving experience and employment information
to assess qualification for participation in the study and/or control
groups; (2) crashes (to be specified); (3) any traffic citations or
warnings received while driving a CMV; (4) any violations or warnings
listed on a CMV inspection report when the participating driver was
operating the vehicle; and (5) detailed 24-hour records of activity to
include CMV hours-of-service logs or electronic records. Some of this
information would be automatically reported to FMCSA; however, due to
possibility of delays in reporting and inaccurate data in some
instances, the participating carrier would be asked to collect the
information from all participating drivers and report it to FMCSA in a
designated format. Other information that may be needed, such as
vehicle miles traveled, would also be collected through the
participating carrier. Every effort would be made to minimize the
burden on the carrier in collecting and reporting this data.

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposed pilot program would require participating motor
carriers to collect, maintain, and report to FMCSA certain information
about their employed/sponsored drivers who are participating in the
pilot program. This would include identifying information and safety
performance data for use in analyzing the drivers' safety history. The
Agency would revise the forms developed for the Under-21 Military
Driver pilot program to promote uniformity in the data collected by the
pilot carriers.
    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) prohibits
agencies from conducting information collection (IC) activities until
they analyze the need for the collection of information and how the
collected data would be managed. Agencies must also analyze whether
technology could be used to reduce the burden imposed on those
providing the data. The Agency must estimate the time burden required
to respond to the IC requirements, such as the time required to
complete a particular form. The Agency submits its IC analysis and
burden estimate to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as a
formal information collection request (ICR); the Agency cannot conduct
the information collection until OMB approves the ICR. FMCSA asks for
comment on the IC requirements of this proposal. The Agency's analysis
of these comments would be used in devising the Agency's estimate of
the IC burden of the pilot program. Comments can be submitted to the
docket as outlined under ADDRESSES at the beginning of this notice.
Specifically, the Agency asks for comment on: (1) How useful the
information is and whether it can help FMCSA perform its functions
better; (2) how the Agency can improve the quality of the information
being collected; (3) the accuracy of FMCSA's estimate of the burden of
this IC; and (4) how the Agency can minimize the burden of collection.
    Because this is a proposed pilot program in which certain aspects--
such as the content of forms and reports--have not been finalized, the
Agency is not posting the possible IC burden data at this time. If the
pilot program is to be implemented, this information would be posted at
a later date and additional comments would be taken.

VIII. Monitoring and Oversight

    FMCSA would review both monthly data submitted by approved motor
carriers and its own databases including, but not limited to, MCMIS,
Safety Measurement System, Commercial Driver's License Information
System, the Licensing and Insurance system, and the Drug and Alcohol
Clearinghouse. FMCSA reserves the right to remove any motor carrier or
driver from the pilot program for reasons including, but not limited
to, failing to meet any of the requirements of the program.

IX. Length of Program

    FMCSA expects this program to run for 3 years but may conclude the
program sooner if there is sufficient data to analyze the safety of
covered drivers.

X. Request for Public Comments

    The following questions identify input desired by FMCSA.
Instructions for filing comments to the public docket are included
earlier in this notice. Persons are encouraged to respond wherever
possible by reference to the question number, but comments are not
limited to replies to these questions:
    1. Should FMCSA consider any additional safeguards to ensure that
the pilot program provides an equivalent level of safety to the
regulations without the age exemption?
    2. Would carriers be able to obtain enough drivers to serve in the
control group?
    3. Would the vehicle technology requirements proposed for study
group drivers limit participation by smaller companies?
    4. Should FMCSA limit the distance that study group drivers should
be allowed to operate (e.g., 150 air-mile radius, 250 air-mile radius)?
    5. Are the data collection efforts proposed so burdensome for
carriers as to discourage their participation?
    6. Should we limit participation to drivers who have not been
involved in a preventable crash?

James A. Mullen,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-19977 Filed 9-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P