[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 22 (Thursday, February 2, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 6971]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02153]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2023 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 13

RIN 2105-AF12

Revisions to Civil Penalty Amounts; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT or the Department).

ACTION: Correcting amendments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation
Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, DOT published a final rule on
January 6, 2023, to provide the 2023 inflation adjustment to civil
penalty amounts that may be imposed for violations of certain DOT
regulations. This rule corrects errors in that rulemaking by making the
statutorily required adjustment to an unadjusted FAA penalty and
updating a table heading.

DATES: Effective February 2, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Kohl, Attorney-Advisor,
Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule corrects errors in DOT's final
rule, published on January 6, 2023 (88 FR 1114), in accordance with the
Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of
2015, providing the 2023 inflation adjustment to civil penalty amounts
that may be imposed for violations of certain DOT regulations.
Specifically, the final rule specified the updated applicable minimum
penalty for violation of hazardous materials transportation law
relating to training in 49 U.S.C. 5123(a)(3) of $582 (and the prior
year's penalty of $540) in the preamble of the final rule, but the
penalty specified in the regulatory text was not updated and remained
as $540 (the prior year's penalty also remained unadjusted at $508). In
addition, a table heading in Table 1 to Sec.  13.301 was not updated
from ``2021 Minimum penalty amount'' to ``2022 Minimum penalty
amount.'' DOT publishes this final rule to correct those errors.

Regulatory Analysis and Notices

    DOT has determined that the regulatory reviews and analyses
conducted in support of the January 6, 2023, final rule remain
unchanged because of this final rule.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 13

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air transportation,
Hazardous materials transportation, Investigations, Law enforcement,
Penalties.

    Accordingly, the Department of Transportation amends 14 CFR part 13
by making the following correcting amendments:

PART 13--INVESTIGATIVE AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 13 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 18 U.S.C. 6002; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 49 U.S.C.
106(g), 5121-5124, 40113-40114, 44103-44106, 44701-44704, 44709-
44710, 44713, 44725, 44742, 44802 (note), 46101-46111, 46301, 46302
(for a violation of 49 U.S.C. 46504), 46304-46316, 46318-46320,
46501-46502, 46504, 46507, 47106, 47107, 47111, 47122, 47306, 47531-
47532; 49 CFR 1.83.

0
2. Amend Sec.  13.301 in paragraph (c), table 1, by revising the
heading of the third column and the entry for ``49 U.S.C. 5123(a)(3)''
to read as follows:

Sec.  13.301  Inflation adjustments of civil monetary penalties.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

       Table 1 to Sec.   13.301--Minimum and Maximum Civil Monetary Penalty Amounts for Certain Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   New adjusted                   New adjusted
                                                                 minimum penalty                maximum penalty
                                   Civil monetary      2022         amount for        2022         amount for
  United States Code citation         penalty         Minimum       violations       Maximum       violations
                                    description       penalty    occurring on  or    penalty    occurring on  or
                                                      amount    after  January 6,    amount    after  January 6,
                                                                       2023                           2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
49 U.S.C. 5123(a)(3)...........  Violation of             $540               $582     $89,678            $96,624
                                  hazardous
                                  materials
                                  transportation
                                  law relating to
                                  training.

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

    Signed under authority provided by 28 U.S.C. 2461 note and 49
CFR 1.27 in Washington, DC, on January 27th, 2023.
John E. Putnam,
General Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2023-02153 Filed 2-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 113)]
[Notices]
[Page 33153-33154]
[DOCID:fr11jn08-122]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket Nos. FMCSA-01-11426, FMCSA-03-16564, FMCSA-05-21711, FMCSA-05-
22194, FMCSA-05-23099, FMCSA-06-23773]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Renewals; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA, in an earlier notice, announced its decision to renew
the exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations for 13 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to
exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions
granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has reviewed the
comments submitted in response to the previous announcement and
concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety
that will be equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety
maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) drivers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The notice
was published on March 21, 2008 (FR 73 15254), and the comment period
ended on April 21, 2008.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

Conclusion

    The Agency has not received any adverse evidence on any of these
drivers that indicates that safety is being compromised. Based upon its
evaluation of the 13 renewal applications, FMCSA renews the Federal
vision exemptions for Roy L. Allen, Lyle H. Banser, Lloyd J. Botsford,
Walter M. Brown, Charley J. Davis, Paul D. Gaither, Thomas R. Hedden,
Sergio A. Hernandez, Lucio Leal, Earl R. Mark, Michael R. Moore,
Richard W. Neyens, and Bill L. Pearcy.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each renewal
exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
    The exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply
with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was
granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.

    Issued on: June 4, 2008.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
 [FR Doc. E8-13125 Filed 6-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 162 (Thursday, August 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51550-51552]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18214]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0075]

Receipt of Petitions for Temporary Exemption From Shoulder Belt
Requirement for Side-Facing Seats on Motorcoaches

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petitions for temporary exemption; request
for comment.

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA has received almost identical petitions from 13 final-
stage manufacturers of ``entertainer-type motorcoaches,'' seeking
temporary exemption from a shoulder belt requirement of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection,''
for side-facing seats on motorcoaches. The petitioners seek to install
Type 1 seat belts (lap belt only) at side-facing seating positions,
instead of Type 2 seat belts (lap and shoulder belts) required by FMVSS
No. 208. Each petitioner states that, absent the requested exemption,
it will otherwise be unable to sell a vehicle whose overall level of
safety or impact protection is at least equal to that of a nonexempted
vehicle. NHTSA is publishing this document to notify the public of the
receipt of the petitions and to request comment on them, in accordance
with statutory and administrative provisions.

DATES: If you would like to comment, you should submit your comment not
later than October 19, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deirdre Fujita, Office of the Chief
Counsel, NCC-200, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

ADDRESSES: You may submit your comment, identified by the docket number
in the heading of this document, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,
DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. To be sure someone is
there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> before coming.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number.
    Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below. NHTSA will
consider all comments received before the close of business on the
comment closing date indicated above. To the extent possible, NHTSA
will also consider comments filed after the closing date.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. To be sure someone is
there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> before coming.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible
through www.dot.gov/privacy. In order to facilitate comment tracking
and response, the agency encourages commenters to provide their name,
or the name of their organization; however, submission of names is
completely optional. Whether or not commenters identify themselves, all
timely comments will be fully considered. If you wish to provide
comments containing proprietary or confidential information, please see
below.
    Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any
information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three
copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim
to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA,
at the address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, you should submit a copy, from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the
address given above. When you send a comment containing information
claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a
cover letter setting forth the information specified in our
confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

a. Statutory Authority for Temporary Exemptions

    The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act),
codified as 49 U.S.C. chapter 301, provides the Secretary of
Transportation authority to exempt, on a temporary basis, under
specified circumstances, and on terms the Secretary deems appropriate,
motor vehicles from a motor vehicle safety standard or bumper standard.
This authority and circumstances are set forth in 49 U.S.C. 30113. The
Secretary has delegated the authority for implementing this section to
NHTSA.
    NHTSA established 49 CFR part 555, Temporary Exemption from Motor
Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards, to implement the statutory
provisions concerning temporary exemptions. Under Part 555 subpart A, a
vehicle manufacturer seeking an exemption must submit a petition for
exemption containing specified information. Among other things, the
petition must set forth (a) the reasons why granting the exemption
would be in the public

interest and consistent with the objectives of the Safety Act, and (b)
required information showing that the manufacturer satisfies one of
four bases for an exemption.\1\ Each petitioner is applying on the
basis that compliance with the standard would prevent the manufacturer
from selling a motor vehicle with an overall safety level at least
equal to the overall safety level of nonexempt vehicles (see 49 CFR
555.6(d)). A manufacturer is eligible for an exemption under this basis
only if NHTSA determines the exemption is for not more than 2,500
vehicles to be sold in the U.S. in any 12-month period. An exemption
under this basis may be granted for not more than 2 years, but may be
renewed upon reapplication.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 49 CFR 555.5(b)(5) and 555.5(b)(7).
    \2\ 555.8(b) and 555.8(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. FMVSS No. 208

    On November 25, 2013, NHTSA published a final rule amending FMVSS
No. 208 to require seat belts for each passenger seating position in
all new over-the-road buses (OTRBs) (regardless of gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR)), and all other buses with GVWRs greater than 11,793
kilograms (kg) (26,000 pounds (lb)) (with certain exclusions).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 78 FR 70416 (November 25, 2013); response to petitions for
reconsideration, 81 FR 19902 (April 6, 2016). The final rule became
effective November 28, 2016 for buses manufactured in a single
stage, and a year later for buses manufactured in more than one
stage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) preceding the final
rule (75 FR 50958, August 18, 2010) NHTSA proposed to permit
manufacturers the option of installing either a Type 1 (lap belt) or a
Type 2 (lap and shoulder belt) on side-facing seats.\4\ The proposed
option was consistent with a provision in FMVSS No. 208 that allows lap
belts for side-facing seats on buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000
lb) or less. NHTSA proposed the option because the agency was unaware
of any demonstrable increase in associated risk of lap belts compared
to lap and shoulder belts on side-facing seats. NHTSA believed that \5\
``a study commissioned by the European Commission regarding side-facing
seats on minibuses and motorcoaches found that due to different seat
belt designs, crash modes and a lack of real world data, it cannot be
determined whether a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt would be the most
effective.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 75 FR at 50971.
    \5\ 75 FR at 50971-50972.
    \6\ http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/automotive/projects/safety_consid_long_stg.pdf [Footnote in text.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, after the NPRM was published, the Motorcoach Enhanced
Safety Act of 2012 was enacted as part of the Moving Ahead for Progress
in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), Public Law 112-141 (July 6, 2012).
Section 32703(a) of MAP-21 directed the Secretary of Transportation
(authority delegated to NHTSA) to ``prescribe regulations requiring
safety belts to be installed in motorcoaches at each designated seating
position.'' \7\ As MAP-21 defined ``safety belt'' to mean an integrated
lap and shoulder belt, the final rule amended FMVSS No. 208 to require
lap and shoulder belts at all designated seating positions, including
side-facing seats, on OTRBs.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ MAP-21 states at Sec.  32702(6) that ``the term `motorcoach'
has the meaning given the term `over-the-road bus' in section
3038(a)(3) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49
U.S.C. 5310 note), but does not include a bus used in public
transportation provided by, or on behalf of, a public transportation
agency; or a school bus, including a multifunction school activity
bus.'' Section 3038(a)(3) (49 U.S.C. 5310 note) states: ``The term
`over-the-road bus' means a bus characterized by an elevated
passenger deck located over a baggage compartment.''
    \8\ For side-facing seats on buses other than OTRBs, in the
final rule NHTSA permitted either lap or lap/shoulder belts at the
manufacturer's option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even as it did so, however, the agency reiterated its view that
``the addition of a shoulder belt at [side-facing seats on light
vehicles] is of limited value, given the paucity of data related to
side facing seats.'' \9\ NHTSA also reiterated that there have been
concerns expressed in literature in this area about shoulder belts on
side-facing seats, noting in the final rule that, although the agency
has no direct evidence that shoulder belts may cause serious neck
injuries when applied to side-facing seats, there are simulation data
indicative of potential carotid artery injury when the neck is loaded
by the shoulder belt.\10\ The agency also noted that Australian Design
Rule ADR 5/04, ``Anchorages for Seatbelts'' specifically prohibits
shoulder belts for side-facing seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 78 FR at 70448, quoting from the agency's Anton's Law final
rule which required lap/shoulder belts in forward-facing rear
seating positions of light vehicles, 59 FR 70907.
    \10\ Editors: Fildes, B., Digges, K., ``Occupant Protection in
Far Side Crashes,'' Monash University Accident Research Center,
Report No. 294, April 2010, pg. 57. [Footnote in text.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given that background, and believing there would be few side-facing
seats on OTRBs, NHTSA stated in the November 2013 final rule that
manufacturers may petition NHTSA for a temporary exemption under 49 CFR
part 555 to install lap belts instead of lap and shoulder belts at
side-facing seats.\11\ The basis for the petition would be that the
applicant is unable to sell a bus whose overall level of safety is at
least equal to that of a non-exempted vehicle; i.e., for side-facing
seats, lap belts provide at least an equivalent level of safety as lap
and shoulder belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 78 FR at 70448.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Receipt of Petitions

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113 and the procedures in 49 CFR
part 555, 13 final-stage manufacturers of entertainer motorcoaches have
submitted individual, mostly identical \12\ petitions asking NHTSA for
a temporary exemption from the shoulder belt requirement of FMVSS No.
208 for side-facing seats on their vehicles. The petitions seek to
install Type 1 seat belts (lap belt only) at side-facing seating
positions, instead of Type 2 seat belts (lap and shoulder belts) as
required by FMVSS No. 208. The basis for each of the applications is
that compliance would prevent the petitioners from selling a motor
vehicle with an overall safety level at least equal to the overall
safety level of nonexempt vehicles (49 CFR 555.6(d)).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The petitions just differed in the name, address and
business structure of each petitioner.
    \13\ The petitions are related to a petition for temporary
exemption NHTSA received from Hemphill Brothers Leasing Company, LLC
(Hemphill) on the same shoulder belt requirement of FMVSS No. 208
for side-facing seats on entertainer buses. (Notice of receipt of
petition, 84 FR 11735 (March 28, 2019); notice of grant of petition,
84 FR 69966 (November 14, 2019).) In its original petition, Hemphill
stated that 39 ``other petitioners'' were covered by it. After NHTSA
noted that the Safety Act and NHTSA's procedures did not clearly
allow bundling such petitions (84 FR at 11738), the other
manufacturers submitted individual petitions. Originally, 41
manufacturers submitted petitions, but later all but 13 withdrew
their petitions. Today's notice pertains to those 13 remaining
petitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the convenience of readers, and to facilitate administrative
processing of the petitions, NHTSA is issuing this single document to
notify the public of and request comment on the petitions rather than
publishing separate notices for each petition. Copies of each petition
have been placed in the docket listed in the heading of this notice. To
view the petitions, go to http://www.regulations.gov and enter the
docket number in the heading.
    The petitioners are listed alphabetically as follows:
    All Access Coach Leasing LLC, Amadas Coach, Creative Mobile
Interiors, D&S Classic Coach Inc., Farber Specialty Vehicles, Florida
Coach, Inc., Geomarc, Inc., Integrity Interiors LLC, Nitetrain Coach
Company, Inc., Pioneer Coach Interiors LLC, Roberts Brothers Coach
Company, Russell Coachworks LLC, and Ultra Coach Inc.

c. Brief Overview of the Petitions

    Each petitioner states that it typically receives a bus shell \14\
from an ``original manufacturer'' and ``customizes the Over-the-Road
Bus (`OTRB') to meet the needs of entertainers, politicians, musicians,
celebrities and other specialized customers who use motorcoaches as a
necessity for their businesses.'' Each petitioner states that it
``builds out the complete interior'' of the bus shell, including--

roof escape hatch; fire suppression systems (interior living space,
rear tires, electrical panels, bay storage compartments, and
generator); ceiling, side walls and flooring; seating; electrical
system, generator, invertor and house batteries; interior lighting;
interior entertainment equipment; heating, ventilation and cooling
system; galley with potable water, cooking equipment, refrigerators,
and storage cabinets; bathroom and showers; and sleeping positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The petitions describe the bus as generally containing the
following components: exterior frame; driver's seat; dash cluster,
speedometer, emissions light and emissions diagnosis connector;
exterior lighting, headlights, marker lights, turn signals lights,
and brake lights; exterior glass, windshield and side lights with
emergency exits; windshield wiper system; braking system; tires,
tire pressure monitoring system and suspension; and engine and
transmission.

Each petitioner states that ``fewer than 100 entertainer-type
motorcoaches with side-facing seats are manufactured and enter the U.S.
market each year.''
    Pursuant to 49 CFR 555.6(d), an application must provide ``[a]
detailed analysis of how the vehicle provides the overall level of
safety or impact protection at least equal to that of nonexempt
vehicles.''
    Each petitioner reiterates the agency's discussion from the
November 2013 seat belt final rule, summarized above. The petitioners
also state that NHTSA has not conducted testing on the impact or
injuries to passengers in side-facing seats in motorcoaches, so ``there
is no available credible data that supports requiring a Type 2 belt at
the side-facing seating positions.'' Each petitioner believes that if
they comply with the final rule as published, they would be ``forced to
offer'' customers--

a motorcoach with a safety feature that could make the occupants
less safe, or certainly at least no more safe, than if the feature
was not installed. The current requirement in FMVSS 208 for Type 2
belts at side-facing seating positions in OTRBs makes the applicants
unable to sell a motor vehicle whose overall level of safety is
equivalent to or exceeds the level of safety of a non-exempted
vehicle.

    Pursuant to 49 CFR 555.5(b)(7), petitioners must state why granting
an exemption allowing it to install Type 1 instead of Type 2 seat belts
in side-facing seats would be in the public interest and consistent
with the objectives of the Safety Act.
    Each petitioner states that granting an exemption to allow
manufacturers an option of installing a Type 1 lap belt at side-facing
seating positions is consistent with the public interest because
``NHTSA's analysis in developing this rule found that such belts
presented no demonstrable increase in associated risk.'' The
petitioners also each state that the final rule requiring Type 2 belts
at side-facing seats ``was not the result of any change in NHTSA policy
or analysis, but rather resulted from an overly broad mandate by
Congress for `safety belts to be installed in motorcoaches at each
designated seating position.' '' They state that, ``based on the
existing studies referenced herein and noted in the rulemaking,
petitioners assert that Type 1 belts at side-facing seats may provide
equivalent or even superior occupant protection than Type 2 belts.''
    Petitioners believe that an option for Type 1 belts at side-facing
seats is consistent with the objectives of the Safety Act because, they
state, Sec.  30111(a) of the Safety Act states that the Secretary shall
establish motor vehicle safety standards that ``shall be practicable,
meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective
terms.'' Petitioners state that--

an option for Type 1 or Type 2 belts at side-facing seating
positions is practicable as it allows the manufacturer to determine
the best approach to motor vehicle safety depending on the intended
use of the vehicle and its overall design. Additionally, the option
to install either Type 1 or Type 2 belts at such locations meets the
need for motor vehicle safety as it is consistent with current
analysis by NHTSA and the European Commission that indicates no
demonstrable difference in risk between the two types of belts when
installed in sideways-facing seats. Finally, the option for Type 1
or Type 2 belts at side-facing seat locations provides an objective
standard that is easy for manufacturers to understand and meet.

    The petitioners indicate that if there is no future NHTSA research,
testing or analysis to justify the use of Type 2 belts in side-facing
seats in over-the-road buses, they expect to seek to renew the
exemption, if granted, at the end of the exemption period.

f. Comment Period

    The agency seeks comment from the public on the merits of the
petitions requesting a temporary exemption from FMVSS No. 208's
shoulder belt requirement for side-facing seats. NHTSA would like to
make clear that the petitioners seek to install lap belts at the side-
facing seats; they do not seek to be completely exempted from a belt
requirement. Further, the petitioners' requests do not pertain to
forward-facing designated seating positions on their vehicles. Under
FMVSS No. 208, forward-facing seating positions on motorcoaches must
have Type 2 lap and shoulder belts, and the petitioners are not raising
issues about that requirement for forward-facing seats. After
considering public comments and other available information, NHTSA will
publish a notice of final action on the petitions in the Federal
Register.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.95 and 501.4.

James Clayton Owens,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-18214 Filed 8-19-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37331-37332]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13295]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OGC-2022-0446; FRL-9940-01-OGC]

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA or the
Act), notice is hereby given of a proposed consent decree in WildEarth
Guardians v. Regan, No. 1:22-cv-174-RB-GBW (D.N.M.). On March 8, 2022,
Plaintiff WildEarth Guardians filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of New Mexico alleging that the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) failed to perform a
non-discretionary duty in accordance with the Act to either promulgate
a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) or approve a State Implementation
Plan (SIP) for New Mexico that meets CAA requirements for the 2015
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The proposed
consent decree would establish a June 1, 2024, deadline for EPA to take
specified actions.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by July 22, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OGC-2022-0446, online at https://www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred
method). Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
number for this action. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Additional Information
about Commenting on the Proposed Consent Decree'' heading under the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeanhee Hong, Air and Radiation Law
Office, Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining a Copy of the Proposed Consent Decree

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2022-0446) contains a copy of the proposed consent
decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at
the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket
Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC.
The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The electronic version of the public docket for this action
contains a copy of the proposed consent decree and is available through
https://www.regulations.gov. You may use https://www.regulations.gov to
submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the
contents of the official public docket, and access those documents in
the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select
``search.''

II. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    The proposed consent decree would resolve a lawsuit filed by
WildEarth Guardians seeking to compel the Administrator to promulgate a
FIP for New Mexico to satisfy the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. On October 1, 2015, EPA
promulgated a final rule revising the ozone NAAQS. Effective January 6,
2020, EPA determined that New Mexico had ``not submitted [a] complete
interstate transport [SIP] to meet the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS[,]'' which established a 2-
year deadline under CAA section 110(c)(1) for EPA to promulgate a FIP
for New Mexico to satisfy these requirements unless, before EPA
promulgates such FIP, the State submits and EPA approves a SIP that
meets these requirements.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 84 FR 66612, 66614 (December 5, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, no later than June
1, 2024, EPA must sign a final rule or rules taking one or more of the
following actions with respect to the State of New Mexico to meet the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) regarding prohibiting
significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with
maintenance in other states for the 2015 ozone NAAQS: (a) promulgate a
FIP; (b) approve a SIP; or (c) approve in part a SIP in conjunction
with promulgating a partial FIP.
    In accordance with section 113(g) of the CAA, for a period of
thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this document,
the Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed
consent decree. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or
withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments
disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is
inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the
requirements of the Act.

III. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2022-
0446, via https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from this docket. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit to EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. For additional information about submitting information
identified as CBI, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other
contact information in the body of your comment. This ensures that you
can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to
contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical

difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your
comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of
a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the
official public docket and made available in EPA's electronic public
docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment.
    Use of the https://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments
to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments.
The electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
    Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.

Gautam Srinivasan,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2022-13295 Filed 6-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 107 (Monday, June 4, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 25678]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11945]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4365-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001]

Hawaii; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Hawaii (FEMA-4365-DR), dated May 8, 2018, and
related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued May 8, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated May 8, 2018, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Hawaii resulting from severe storms, flooding, landslides, and
mudslides during the period of April 13-16, 2018, is of sufficient
severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act,
42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare
that such a major disaster exists in the State of Hawaii.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the
eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage
under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for
Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford
Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Dolph A. Diemont, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Hawaii have been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

    The City and County of Honolulu and Kaua'i County for Public
Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Hawaii are eligible for assistance
under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2018-11945 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 138 (Thursday, July 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33542-33544]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14919]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2005-20027; FMCSA-2005-20560; FMCSA-2006-26653;
FMCSA-2007-27333; FMCSA-2008-0021; FMCSA-2008-0398; FMCSA-2009-0054;
FMCSA-2009-0121; FMCSA-2010-0327; FMCSA-2010-0413; FMCSA-2011-0024;
FMCSA-2011-0092; FMCSA-2011-0102; FMCSA-2012-0338; FMCSA-2013-0022;
FMCSA-2013-0027; FMCSA-2013-0028; FMCSA-2014-0302; FMCSA-2014-0304;
FMCSA-2014-0305; FMCSA-2014-0048; FMCSA-2015-0049; FMCSA-2015-0052]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 88
individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these individuals to continue to
operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision
requirement in one eye.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions was applicable on the dates
stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in
the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before August
21, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2005-20027; FMCSA-2005-20560;
FMCSA-2006-26653; FMCSA-2007-27333; FMCSA-2008-0021; FMCSA-2008-0398;
FMCSA-2009-0054; FMCSA-2009-0121; FMCSA-2010-0327; FMCSA-2010-0413;
FMCSA-2011-0024; FMCSA-2011-0092; FMCSA-2011-0102; FMCSA-2012-0338;
FMCSA-2013-0022; FMCSA-2013-0027; FMCSA-2013-0028; FMCSA-2014-0302;
FMCSA-2014-0304; FMCSA-2014-0305; FMCSA-2014-0048; FMCSA-2015-0049;
FMCSA-2015-0052 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number(s) for this notice. Note that all comments received will
be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments online.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for two years if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be
achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the Agency to
renew exemptions at the end of the two-year period.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically
qualified to driver a CMV if that person:

    Has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each
eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected
to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant
binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or
without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70[deg] in
the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize
the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and
amber.

    The 88 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of
their exemptions from the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), in
accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated
these applications for renewal on their merits

and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period.

II. Request for Comments

    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

III. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of
the 88 applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an
exemption from the vision requirement (70 FR 2701; 70 FR 16887; 70 FR
17504; 70 FR 30997; 72 FR 8417; 72 FR 12666; 72 FR 25831; 72 FR 27624;
72 FR 36099; 73 FR 15567; 73 FR 27015; 74 FR 7097; 74 FR 11988; 74 FR
15584; 74 FR 19270; 74 FR 21427; 74 FR 21796; 74 FR 26461; 74 FR 26466;
74 FR 34630; 75 FR 19674; 75 FR 65057; 75 FR 79081; 76 FR 1493; 76 FR
12408; 76 FR 17481; 76 FR 25762; 76 FR 25766; 76 FR 28125; 76 FR 29022;
76 FR 34135; 76 FR 37168; 76 FR 37173; 76 FR 37885; 76 FR 44082; 77 FR
23797; 77 FR 74731; 78 FR 800; 78 FR 12811; 78 FR 12815; 78 FR 22596;
78 FR 22602; 78 FR 24300; 78 FR 24798; 78 FR 26106; 78 FR 27281; 78 FR
34140; 78 FR 37270; 78 FR 41188; 78 FR 46407; 78 FR 51268; 78 FR 51269;
78 FR 57679; 79 FR 23797; 80 FR 603; 80 FR 12248; 80 FR 14220; 80 FR
14223; 80 FR 16502; 80 FR 18696; 80 FR 22773; 80 FR 25766; 80 FR 26139;
80 FR 26320; 80 FR 29152; 80 FR 31636; 80 FR 31640; 80 FR 31957; 80 FR
33007; 80 FR 33011; 80 FR 35699; 80 FR 36395; 80 FR 36398; 80 FR 45573;
80 FR 48404; 80 FR 48409; 80 FR 48413). They have submitted evidence
showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the
requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision
impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety
while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two
years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption
requirements. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting
each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate
commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for
each renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a
level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following
groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of July and
are discussed below:
    As of July 2, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 32 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (70 FR 2701;
70 FR 16887; 70 FR 17504; 70 FR 30997; 72 FR 8417; 72 FR 27624; 72 FR
36099; 73 FR 15567; 73 FR 27015; 74 FR 7097; 74 FR 11988; 74 FR 15584;
74 FR 19270; 74 FR 21427; 74 FR 21796; 74 FR 26466; 75 FR 19674; 75 FR
65057; 76 FR 17481; 76 FR 25762; 76 FR 25766; 76 FR 28125; 76 FR 37173;
76 FR 37885; 77 FR 23797; 77 FR 74731; 78 FR 800; 78 FR 12811; 78 FR
12815; 78 FR 22596; 78 FR 22602; 78 FR 24300; 78 FR 26106; 78 FR 37270;
78 FR 57679; 79 FR 23797; 80 FR 603; 80 FR 12248; 80 FR 14220; 80 FR
14223; 80 FR 16502; 80 FR 18696; 80 FR 22773; 80 FR 25766; 80 FR 26139;
80 FR 26320; 80 FR 29152; 80 FR 31640; 80 FR 31957; 80 FR 33011; 80 FR
45573; 80 FR 48409):

Michael W. Anderson (NM)
Michael R. Bradford (MD)
Ralph H. Bushman (IL)
William D. Cardiff (IL)
John J. Caricola, Jr. (NC)
Adan Cortes-Juarez (WA)
David L. Ellis (OK)
Denise M. Engle (GA)
Robert A. Goerl, Jr. (PA)
Wade M. Hillmer (MN)
Paul M. Hinkson (TN)
Michael W. Jensen (CA)
Clifford D. Johnson (VA)
Michael Lafferty (ID)
Mark L. LeBlanc (MN)
Michael J. McGregan (FL)
Felix L. McLean (NM)
Anthony R. Miles (NV)
Jerry D. Paul (OK)
John P. Perez (FL)
Raymond W. Pitts (FL)
William A. Ramirez Vasquez (CA)
Donald W. Randall (OR)
Raymond Sherrill (PA)
Kyle C. Shover (NJ)
Charles H. Smith (IN)
George Stapleton (GA)
David B. Stone (OK)
David M. Stout (OR)
James K. Waites (AR)
John E. Westbrook (LA)
Jason R. White (OH)

    The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos:
FMCSA-2005-20027; FMCSA-2005-20560; FMCSA-2006-26653; FMCSA-2008-0021;
FMCSA-2008-0398; FMCSA-2009-0054; FMCSA-2010-0327; FMCSA-2011-0024;
FMCSA-2011-0092; FMCSA-2012-0338; FMCSA-2013-0022; FMCSA-2014-0302;
FMCSA-2014-0304; FMCSA-2014-0305; FMCSA-2015-0048. Their exemptions are
applicable as of July 2, 2017, and will expire on July 2, 2019.
    As of July 7, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 8 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (80 FR
31636; 80 FR 48413):

Robert A. Buckley (IN)
Jose J. Guzman-Olguin (IL)
Stephen T. Hines (NJ)
James J. Keranen (MI)
Herbert S. Lear (PA)
Nathan C. Nissen (IA)
Gregory S. Richter (PA)
George Tomecek (PA)

    The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2015-0049. Their
exemptions are applicable as of July 7, 2017, and will expire on July
7, 2019.
    As of July 9, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 5 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (78 FR
41188; 78 FR 27281; 78 FR 41188; 80 FR 33007):

Brian G. Dvorak (IL)
Charles T. Spears (VA)
Brian E. Tessman (WI)
Gregory J. Thurston (PA)
Donald Torbett (IA)

    The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2013-0028. Their
exemptions are applicable as of July 9, 2017, and will expire on July
9, 2019.
    As of July 16, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 7 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (74 FR
26461; 74 FR 34630; 76 FR 1493; 76 FR 12408; 76 FR 37168; 78 FR 51269):

Steven L. Forristall (WI)
Rocky D. Gysberg (MN)
Charles H. Lefew (VA)
Joseph B. Peacock (NC)
James M. Tennyson (MD)
Steven L. Thomas (IN)
Daniel A. Wescott (CO)

    The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos:
FMCSA-2009-0413; FMCSA-2009-0121. Their exemptions are applicable as of
July 16, 2017, and will expire on July 16, 2019.
    As of July 22, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 12 individuals have satisfied

the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision
requirements (72 FR 72666; 72 FR 25831; 74 FR 19270; 76 FR 29022; 76 FR
34135; 76 FR 44082; 78 FR 34140; 78 FR 51268; 80 FR 36398):

Stanley C. Anders (SD)
Joel A. Cabrera (FL)
Sherman W. Clapper (ID)
Eric Esplin (UT)
Ronald R. Fournier (NY)
Ronald D. Jackman II (NV)
Thomas W. Kent (IN)
Robert J. MacInnis (MA)
Steven A. Proctor (TX)
Rodney W. Sukalski (MN)
Larry D. Warneke (WA)
Lonnie Wendinger (MN)

    The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos:
FMCSA-2007-27333; FMCSA-2011-0102. Their exemptions are applicable as
of July 22, 2017, and will expire on July 22, 2019.
    As of July 23, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 19 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (80 FR
35699; 80 FR 48404):

Robert J. Bickel (MI)
Steven R. Brinegar (TX)
Garry D. Burkholder (PA)
Dennis W. Cosens (NM)
William J. Garigulo (OH)
Wladyslaw Gogola (IL)
Antonio Gomez (PA)
Mark A. Grenier (CT)
Acquillious Jackson III (SC)
Jimmy D. Johnson, II (TN)
Bradley J. Kearl (UT)
Larry G. Kreke (IL)
Christopher P. Mrockza (MD)
Gary A. Oster (OR)
Mark A. Pleskovitch (IL)
Edward J. Puto (CT)
Andrew P. Risner (OH)
Kyle B. Sharp (MI)
Francis A. St. Pierre (NH)

    The drivers were included docket No. FMCSA-2015-0052. Their
exemptions are applicable as of July 23, 2017, and will expire on July
23, 2019.
    As of July 31, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 5 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (76 FR
25766; 76 FR 37885; 78 FR 37270; 80 FR 31640):

Anthony Luciano (CT)
David McKinney (OR)
Frank L. O'Rourke (NY)
Larry F. Reber (OH)
Edward Swaggerty, Jr. (OH)

    The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2011-0092. Their
exemptions are applicable as of July 31, 2017, and will expire on July
31, 2019.

Conditions and Requirements

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) Each driver must undergo an annual physical examination (a) by an
ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the v\vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a certified Medical Examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5,
who attests that the driver is otherwise physically qualified under 49
CFR 391.41; (2) each driver must provide a copy of the
ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the Medical Examiner at
the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) each driver must
provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for
retention in the driver's qualification file and retains a copy of the
certification on his/her person while driving for presentation to a
duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The
exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.

IV. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VI. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 88 exemption applications, FMCSA
renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited
above (49 CFR 391.64(b)). In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, each exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked
earlier by FMCSA.

    Issued on: June 8, 2017.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-14919 Filed 7-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 95 (Thursday, May 16, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 28895]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11674]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Susan Harwood Training Grant Program, FY 2013

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

ACTION: Notice of availability of funds and solicitation for grant
applications (SGA) for Targeted Topic Training and Targeted Topic
Training and Educational Materials Development grants.

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

    Funding Opportunity No.: SHTG-FY-13-02.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.: 17.502.

SUMMARY: This notice announces availability of approximately $1.5
million for Susan Harwood Training Program grants under the following
categories: Targeted Topic Training and Targeted Topic Training and
Educational Materials Development.

DATES: Grant applications must be received electronically by the
Grants.gov system no later than 4:30 p.m., e.t., on Thursday, June 13,
2013, the application deadline date.

ADDRESSES: The complete Susan Harwood Training Grant Program
solicitation for grant applications and all information needed to apply
for this funding opportunity are available at the Grants.gov Web site,
http://www.grants.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding this solicitation
for grant applications should be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
directed to Heather Wanderski, Program Analyst, or Jim Barnes,
Director, Office of Training Programs and Administration, at 847-759-
7700 (note this is not a toll-free number). To obtain further
information on the Susan Harwood Training Grant Program, visit the OSHA
Web site at: http://www.osha.gov/dte/sharwood/index.html. Please note
that on the Susan Harwood Web page, the ``Applying for a Grant''
section contains a PowerPoint presentation entitled ``Helpful Tips for
Improving Your Susan Harwood Grant Application.'' All applicants are
encouraged to review this before drafting a proposal.

Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is Section 21 of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970, (29 U.S.C. 670), Public Law 111-117, and
Public Law 112-10, and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR
3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on May 13, 2013.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2013-11674 Filed 5-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


                                        Executive Summary:  Identification of the Information Collection  -  Title and Numbers       Title: Submission of Protocols and Study Reports for Environmental Research Involving Human Subjects       ICR Numbers: EPA No. 2195.06; OMB Control No. 2070-0169       Docket ID No.: EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0315        Abstract:               The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for the regulation of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).  As revised in 2006, 2013, and 2019, the EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 26 protect subjects of "third-party" human research (i.e., research that is not conducted or supported by the EPA).  In addition to other protections, the regulations require affected entities to submit information to EPA and an institutional review board (IRB) prior to initiating, and to the EPA upon the completion of, certain studies that involve human research participants.  The information collection activity consists of activity-driven reporting and recordkeeping requirements for those who intend to conduct research for submission to EPA under the pesticide laws.  If such research involves intentional exposure of human subjects, these individuals (respondents) are required to submit study protocols to the EPA and a cognizant local Human Subjects IRB before such research is initiated so that the scientific design and ethical standards that will be employed during the proposed study may be reviewed and approved.  Also, respondents are required to submit information about the ethical conduct of completed research that involved human subjects when such research is submitted to the EPA.        This renewal ICR estimates the third-party response burden from complying with the requirements in 40 CFR Part 26, as amended in 2006,2013, and 2019.

Supporting Statement

 Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.             The 2006 Appropriations Act, Public Law No. 109-54, required the EPA to issue a final rule addressing third-party intentional dosing human toxicity studies for pesticides, and the EPA conduct of intentional dosing human toxicity studies for pesticides (Attachment B).  This ICR applies to all the information collection activities identified in the 2006 rule that the EPA promulgated in response to the Congressional mandate and which amended 40 CFR Part 26. The 2013 and 2019 revisions did not change information provided in this ICR because the revisions did not result in changes to the information collection activities and related burden estimates. The EPA's statutory authority to require and collect the information identified already existed under FIFRA and FFDCA. Sections 3(c)(5), 3(g) and 4(g)(2)(D) of FIFRA generally require the EPA to determine that a pesticide would not present any "unreasonable adverse effects on the environment" when deciding to grant a new or amended pesticide registration or to continue an existing registration.  Section 4(g)(2)(E) of FIFRA and section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA generally require the EPA to determine that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the residue of a pesticide chemical, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information when making pesticide tolerance decisions.  FIFRA Section 12(a)(2)(P) forbids any person "to use any pesticide in tests on human beings unless such human beings (i) are fully informed of the nature and purposes of the test and of any physical and mental health consequences which are reasonably foreseeable from, and (ii) freely volunteer to participate in the test." The EPA established this collection of information as part of the 2006 final rule as authorized under section 25 of FIFRA and section 408(e)(1)(C) of FFDCA to:      	 	 (1)	ensure that sound and appropriate scientific data are available to the EPA when making regulatory decisions about pesticides as described in the previous paragraph; and,   		 (2) protect the interests, rights, and safety of human research subjects, as required under FIFRA section 12(a)(2)(P).

Sections 3(c)(5), 3(g), 4(g)(2), and 25 of FIFRA and sections 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) and 408(e)(1)(C) of FFDCA are included as Supporting Statement attachments C and D, respectively.  	  Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the Agency has made of the information received from the current collection.    In order to ensure the availability of sound and appropriate scientific data in its decisions, and to protect the interests, rights and safety of human research subjects, in 2006 the EPA extended the requirements of the Agency's 1991 Common Rule, 40 CFR Part 26, prospectively to third-party research intended for submission to the  EPA under the pesticide laws and involving intentional exposure of non-pregnant, non-nursing adult human subjects.  The information provided allows the EPA and the Human Studies Review Board (HSRB) to review protocols and related information before covered research involving human subjects is initiated, but after it has been reviewed and approved by a local IRB.  In addition, anyone who submits to the EPA a report of research with human subjects must submit concurrently documentation of the ethical conduct of the research.  This information collection activity allows the EPA to ensure all human subjects in research conducted by the EPA (first party), conducted by entities with support from the EPA (second parties), or conducted by third parties with the intention to submit it to the EPA, are treated ethically. The information collected under this ICR has been used by the EPA to satisfy the regulatory requirements to consult with the HSRB on proposed research with human subjects before it is conducted and prior to reliance on the results of human research in regulatory decisions. After consultations with the HSRB, the information has been used to register new skin-applied insect repellent products, to refine occupational and residential risk assessments, and to set regulatory endpoints. Additionally, information collected under this ICR provides documentation about the ethical conduct of research with human subjects, enabling the EPA to determine whether it can rely on the human research submitted.  Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. 	       The EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) completed a major review of its information tracking systems to improve their efficiency and accuracy. This review resulted in improvements to the information system, which will improve the quality of the Agency's databases and allows the EPA to respond timelier and accurately to queries from registrants and the public, including requests made under the FOIA.        The EPA also investigated the possibility of providing optional electronic data transfer services to the industry as a means of minimizing the burden of registration activities. The Agency's pesticide program, along with the pesticide industry, recognizes the advantages in terms of accuracy, speed, cost and personnel from electronic data transfer technologies. In addition, OPP consulted with industry associations and other federal agencies, and participated in an Agency-wide workgroup to develop electronic reporting standards intended to facilitate collection of information from industry.  OPP launched the Pesticide Submission Portal (PSP) to leverage the Agency's Central Data Exchange (CDX) platform and allow pesticide registrants to submit a wide variety of regulatory actions to the EPA electronically, forgoing the need to submit either paper or CDs/DVDs. The type of eligible information and regulatory actions that can be submitted via the PSP is explained on the EPA's website. The PSP is a critical step in achieving the vision of a fully electronic work environment. If registrants want to submit paper copies of study data or CDs to the EPA, they can still do so.  OPP does not publish any studies submitted.  However, it maintains records of each study in the Office of Pesticide Programs Information Network (OPPIN) and provides public access to OPPIN bibliographies through the National Pesticides Information Retrieval System (NPIRS). NPIRS supports searches for technical documents submitted to the EPA by registrants. Information is categorized by chemical, subject, submission date, laboratory, guideline number, and document type.  The public may request copies of studies that are non-confidential by submitting a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

4. Describe efforts to identify duplication              The information requirements identified in the regulations at 40 CFR part 26 do not duplicate other federal agency information collections.  Other federal agencies have adopted the Common Rule and FDA has established requirements similar to those in the Common Rule for third-party researchers who perform human testing intended for submission to FDA.   None of those requirements, however, apply to third-party research that is intended for submission to the EPA.

5. If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe the methods used to minimize burden.              Although the Agency cannot predict whether or how many small entities might engage in the subject matter research, the burden and related cost for researchers to comply with these information collection activities is estimated to be a comparatively small portion of the overall cost of performing such studies.  After reviewing the history of the EPA's consideration of human research in its various program offices, the EPA estimates that only a limited number of third-party human studies will be impacted by these activities each year.  Because both the number of affected studies is relatively small and the estimated current costs of compliance with the Common Rule are low, the potential overall burden and costs from these activities to third parties are also estimated to be small, regardless of their size.  As a result, the EPA has not provided any special flexibility for small entities.

6. Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden. 	       Not applicable.  This is an event-driven information collection activity and is conducted only as information is submitted to the EPA for consideration.  The parties consulted stated that the data collected are not available from another source and the frequency of collection could not be reduced and still produce the same outcome.  There is no set frequency for the collection of this information.         7. Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.              The only guideline established under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that may be exceeded in this collection is the time period for retaining records. The EPA's requirement at 40 CFR 169.2(k) states that records containing research data relating to registered pesticides be retained for as long as the registration is valid, and the producer remains in business.  Registrations are valid until they are either voluntarily canceled or withdrawn by the registrant or until the EPA has cause to suspend or cancel the registration.  Since the average period of marketability of a pesticide ranges from 15 to 30 years, the PRA guidelines specifying that data other than health, medical or tax records not be required to be retained for more than three years will be exceeded in this collection activity.  This is an existing requirement that was not changed by the 2006 final rule.  In any case, the recordkeeping requirement merely codifies the usual and customary business practices of pesticide manufacturers who will retain the records; therefore no burden is attributed to the activity.        OMB regulations require agencies to provide a statement indicating whether the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses, and an explanation of the decision (5 CFR 1320.5(a)(iii)(E)).          Respondents who submit study protocols and/or reports to the EPA may elect to submit certain eligible information electronically.  OPP launched the Pesticide Submission Portal (PSP) to leverage the Agency's Central Data Exchange (CDX) platform and allow pesticide registrants to submit a wide variety of regulatory actions to the EPA electronically, forgoing the need to submit either paper or CDs/DVDs. The type of eligible information and regulatory actions that can be submitted via the PSP is explained on the EPA's website. The PSP is a critical step in achieving the vision of a fully electronic work environment.  If registrants want to submit paper copies or CDs of study data to the EPA, they can still do so. The EPA believes that the promotion and facilitation of the electronic submission option will make its pesticide regulation operations more efficient.  This option can increase the efficiency of operations such as the delivery, review, data interchange capability, and archiving of data supporting national pesticide registration.  The Agency expects that registrants will spend less time and money preparing copies and sending their submissions using the electronic submission option and stand to benefit from the efficiencies that the EPA expects to experience during data reviews.        8. If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publications in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken in response to the comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden. Describe efforts to consult with persons outside EPA to obtain their views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instructions and recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or report. 	        Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d), the EPA will publish a Federal Register (FR) Notice soliciting comments on this information collection activity and the Agency's intent to renew the OMB approval of this ICR.  The FR Notice and the renewal ICR are located in the docket for this action, which can be accessed at: http://www.regulations.gov, using the docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0315.  During preparation of this ICR renewal, EPA staff will contact representatives to seek feedback on the burden estimates in the ICR and the clarity of guidance provided. Staff from the EPA will also contact representatives to seek feedback on the burden estimates in the ICR and the clarity of guidance provided. This is the same process used for past ICR submissions. A summary of comments received, and the consultation will be provided in Attachment H.

9. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees. 	 This question is not applicable to this ICR

10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.

      The EPA has implemented procedures to protect any confidential, trade secret or proprietary information from disclosure that provide strict instructions regarding access to and contact with documents confidential business information (CBI).  These procedures comply with the EPA's CBI regulations at 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B.                      11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.

      No information of a sensitive or private nature is requested in conjunction with these information collection activities, and these information collection activities comply with the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 and OMB Circular A-108.        12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information.

      The EPA is estimating only the incremental burden imposed upon respondents for compliance with the paperwork requirements established in the 2006 final rule.  The EPA is neither estimating, de novo, the estimated paperwork burden for compliance with the 1991 Common Rule in this ICR nor the paperwork burden associated with the generation of certain study data that are already covered by other ICRs, such as those requested by the EPA in a Data Call-In under FIFRA section 3(c)(2)(B).  The EPA assumes that IRBs are already in compliance with the current Common Rule requirements and therefore believes that there is no additional burden imposed upon IRBs for compliance with the paperwork requirements established in the 2006 final rule and discussed in this document. Over the three-year period covered by this ICR renewal (September 2016 through August 2019), based on historical data analysis and knowledge of upcoming submissions, the EPA estimates that respondents will submit to OPP an average of 5 pesticide protocols and 5 completed studies per year under FIFRA and/or FFDCA that will involve intentional exposure of human subjects.  (Some years may involve a higher number of submissions, while other years may involve lower numbers depending on the timing of when protocols or studies must be completed.)  Based on past experience, the EPA also expects to receive other types of pesticide research involving human subjects; an average of 10 of these types of studies may be submitted annually.  While the EPA assumes that researchers conducting these studies would already be required to comply with the 1991 Common Rule requirements, they will be subject to some additional paperwork requirements under the EPA's amendments.  Therefore, the EPA is estimating only the burden and costs associated with the paperwork activities that are described in the 2006 final rule. Respondent activities that are within the scope of this ICR include: preparing and submitting protocols, supporting documents, and completed study reports for review by the IRB, the EPA, and the HSRB; communicating with staff from the IRB and the EPA regarding required changes to a protocol; communicating with the EPA about the HSRB recommendations; and documenting protocol changes made at the recommendation of an IRB, the EPA, or the HSRB.  Activities that are unrelated to the paperwork and recordkeeping requirements of the 2006 final rule, such as the costs of conducting the research, are not incremental paperwork or recordkeeping costs and therefore are not within the scope of this ICR.         The EPA took into account that some study types are more complex than others and there are differences in the preparation of protocols versus completed studies; with that in mind, the EPA calculated an average of the time estimates for each activity using information provided during consultation with respondents.          As shown in Tables 1 and 2, the total annual estimated burden associated with all submitted pesticide research that involves intentional exposure of human subjects is 10,122 hours, and the annual estimated burden for all other pesticide research that involves human subjects is 120 hours. Therefore, the total annual respondent burden for this information collection activity is estimated to be 10,242 hours.  Table 1. Weighted average burden and cost estimates for respondents for research involving intentional exposure of human subjects                                    Activities  Average Burden Hours Per Response  Total Per Response    Management  $195/hr  Technical  $99/hr  Clerical  $59/hr  Hours  Cost ($)  Rule familiarization and training  3  4  3  10                                      $1,156  Prepare and submit protocol for IRB review  11  83  13  107                                     $11,103  Prepare and submit protocol for review by the EPA and the HSRB   35  168  16  219                                     $24,353  Document ethical conduct of a completed study for which the EPA and the HSRB have reviewed the protocol; prepare and submit completed study for review by the IRB, the EPA, and the HSRB  43  987  51  1,081                                     $108,822  Store, file, and maintain records  6  15  8  29                                      $3,121  Total per response  98  1,257  91  1,446                                     $148,555    Annual Burden:	1,446 hours per response * 5 responses per year = 10,122 hours    Annual Costs:	$148,555 per response * 5 responses per year = $1,039,886     Please note that the 5 "responses" per year include 5 protocols plus 5 studies.  This approach to defining responses is consistent with that used and approved for this ICR in previous years.

Table 2. Respondent burden and cost estimates for all other submitted research with human subjects                                    Activities  Average Burden Hours Per Response  Total Per Response    Management  $195/hr  Technical  $99/hr  Clerical  $59/hr  Hours  Cost ($)  Rule familiarization and training  1  1  0  2                                          $294  Prepare and submit ethics information of completed human studies to the EPA  0  8  1  9                                          $848  Store, file, and maintain records  0  0  1  1                                          $59  Total per response  1  9  2  12                                         $1,201    Annual Burden:	12 hours per study * 10 studies submitted per year = 120 hours    Annual Costs:	$1,201 per study * 10 studies submitted per year = $12,009     The estimated annual cost for all respondents is $1,051,896 (Table 1 [$1,039,886.48] and 2 [$12,009]).  Respondent labor rates are estimated to be $195, $99, and $59 per hour, respectively, for managerial, technical and clerical labor.  In determining the rates, OPP uses a single source of data, the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates and selects the appropriate occupational category. The labor rates were derived from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' May 2020 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for NAICS code 541710 (Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences).  These labor rates are fully loaded and include benefits and overhead costs (see Attachment E). Although respondents would prefer that the EPA use industry labor rates, using the BLS data allows the EPA to be consistent between across sectors and occupations. If OPP were to separately research wages for each ICR, the methodology in determining the wages would not be consistent and the wage rates could not be compared between sectors and occupations. Some wages would be biased high, while others would be biased low. The BLS wages are categorized by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes, and therefore are industry-specific. They are, however, national averages. Therefore, some of the high wages earned by specialists in high cost localities are offset by others who are less specialized in lower cost localities.          13.  Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. 	 There are no capital investment or maintenance and operational costs for this information collection.

14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government.

      The estimated Agency annual cost is $372,104  The EPA's activities include communicating with respondents, reviewing the ethical aspects of submitted study protocols and completed study reports, making presentations to the HSRB, documenting decisions, and information management activities to record, file, and track the submissions.  The Agency labor rates are $139, $92, and $51 per hour for management, technical, and clerical staff, respectively.  The labor rates were derived from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' May 2020National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for NAICS code 999100 (Federal Executive Branch).  These labor rates are fully loaded and include benefits and overhead costs (see Attachment F).  The details of the calculations are identified in Tables 3 and 4 in this section. For the pre-rule human research which does not require HSRB review, the EPA assumes that 10 of the studies will be submitted by outside parties and the remaining 10 will be located by the EPA at the Agency's own initiative and therefore will not be subject to 40 CFR 26.1303.

Table 3.  Weighted average Agency burden and cost estimates for research involving intentional exposure Activities Average Burden Hours Per Response Total Per Response

Management $139/hr Technical $92/hr Clerical $51/hr Hours Cost ($) Rule familiarization and training 1 2 0 3 $323 Primary Review of Scientific and Ethical Aspects of a Protocol 3 210 0 213 $19,734 Primary Review of Scientific and Ethical Aspects of a Completed Study Report 3 235 0 238 $22,034 Secondary Review of Scientific and Ethical Aspects of a Protocol 197 $4,694* Secondary Review of Scientific and Ethical Aspects of a Completed Report 197 $4,694* Store, file, and maintain records 0 0 2 2 $ 102 Total per response 7 841 2 850 $51,581 *HSRB members are special government employees; their time should be reflected as part of Agency burden. Cost of HSRB members working on the HSRB report (collectively spending 197 hours per HSRB report in FY 2011, compensated at the 2020 rate of $59/hour), plus the cost of the EPA Office of the Science Advisor (OSA) technical staff working on the HSRB report (30 hours per report, at the technical staff rate of $82/hour). Each HSRB report covers an average of 2 protocols and/or completed studies per report, so each topic costs an average of $4,694. Annual Burden: 850 hours per response x 5 per year = 5,950 hours plus 30 for OSA review of HSRB report = 5,980 hours Annual Costs: $51,181 x 7 responses/year = $431,066 Please note that the estimated 7 "responses" per year include 7 protocols plus 7 studies.  This approach is consistent with that used and approved for this ICR in previous years.

Table 4.  Weighted Average Agency Burden and Cost Estimates  -  Research Involving Intentional Exposure  -  All Other Submitted Research with Human Subjects Activities Average Burden Hours Per Response Total Per Response

Management $139/hr Technical $92/hr Clerical $51/hr Hours Cost ($) Rule familiarization and training 0 0 0 0 0 Primary Review of Ethical Aspects of a Completed Study Report 0 6 0 6 552 Store, file, and maintain records 0 0 0 0 0 Total per response 0 6 0 6 552 Annual Burden:  	6 hours per study x 20 per year = 120 hours Annual Costs:	552 x 20 responses/year = $11,038

Please note that, for the pre-rule human research which does not require HSRB review, the EPA assumes that 10 of the 20 studies will be located at the Agency's own initiative and therefore will not be subject to 40 CFR 26.1303. This approach is consistent with that used for this ICR in previous submissions.

15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in Items 13 (or 14) of OMB Form 83-I.        	The total annual estimated respondent burden is not expected to change from 10,242 hours for this renewal ICR. The anticipated number of responses per year is based on the submissions to the Agency in the recent past and recognition that some of the studies underway will be submitted prior to the start of the ICR renewal period. The annual burden per activity is estimated to be 1,446 hours per response for research involving intentional exposure of human subjects, and 12 hours per response for all other submitted research with human subjects. The overall estimated annual Agency burden is expected to increase slightly due to the number of responses which we expect to receive during the timeframe for this ICR renewal, the nature of the research to be submitted and reviewed over the next three years, and the involvement of staff who will be new to the process of reviewing human research. The total estimate represents the information collection activities expected to occur annually over the next three years.  Table 5 provides the total estimated annual burden and costs for respondents, as well as the total estimated annual burden and costs for the Agency: Table 5.  Total Annual Bottom Line Burden and Costs/Master Table                               Collection Activity                               Annual Burden Hours                                  Annual Costs                       Annual Respondent Burden and Costs Research Involving Intentional Exposure of Human Subjects (Table 1)                                     10,122                                   $1,039,886 All Other Submitted Research with Human Subjects (Table 2)                                       120                                     $12,009 Respondent Total                                     10,242                                   $1,051,896                              Annual Agency Burden Research Involving Intentional Exposure of Human Subjects (Table 3)                                      5,980                                    $361,066  All Other Submitted Research with Human Subjects (Table 4)                                       120                                    $11,038  Agency Total                                      6,100                                    $372,104

16. For collections whose results will be published, outline the plans for tabulation and publication.

	A periodic collection schedule is not appropriate for the information collection activity.  The information collection activity is initiated by the respondents and therefore the EPA expects that respondents will engage in the activities described in this ICR only once, whenever developing and performing a given research study that involves human subjects as governed by the EPA's regulations.

17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons why display would be inappropriate. 	 This question is not applicable to this ICR

18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in Item 19 of OMB Form 83-I. 	 EPA does not request an exception to the certification of this information collection.

List of References, Attachments & Appendices  Attachments to the supporting statement are available in the public docket established for this ICR under docket identification number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0315.

   Attachment 		Title       A	Final Rule  -  2006 Amendment of 40 Part 26; Protections for Test Subjects in Human Research        B		Appropriations Act, 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-54       C		FIFRA Sections 3(c)(5), 3(g), 4(g)(2), and 25       D		FFDCA Sections 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) and 408(e)(1)(C)       E	Estimated Wage Rates for Pesticide Registrants Using BLS NAICS 541710       F	Standard Wages for the Federal Government Using BLS NAICS 999100       G	Display Related to OMB Control #2070-0169 -Listings of Related Regulations in 40 CFR 9.1       H		[Reserved for Consultation]       I	Explanation of Methodology and Data Used to Calculate Respondent Burdens and Costs