24390 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2022 / Notices 

public docket for the application at 

docket number MARAD–2022–0076. 

The Act imposes a strict timeline for 

processing an application. When 

MARAD and USCG determine that an 

application is complete (i.e., contains 

information sufficient to commence 

processing), the Act directs that all 

public hearings on the application be 

concluded within 240 days from the 

date the Notice of Application is 

published. 

Within 45 days after the final hearing, 

the Governor of the ACS, in this case, 

the Governor of Louisiana, may notify 

MARAD of their approval, approval 

with conditions, or disapproval of the 

application. If such approval, approval 

with conditions, or disapproval is not 

provided to the Maritime Administrator 

by that time, approval shall be 

conclusively presumed. MARAD may 

not issue a license without the explicit 

or presumptive approval of the 

Governor of the ACS. During this 45-day 

period, the Governor may also notify 

MARAD of inconsistencies between the 

application and State programs relating 

to environmental protection, land and 

water use, and coastal zone 

management. In this case, MARAD may 

condition the license to make it 

consistent with such state programs (33 

U.S.C. 1508(b)(1)). MARAD will not 

consider written approvals or 

disapprovals of the application from the 

Governor of the ACS until 

commencement of the 45-day period 

after the final public hearing for the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

is completed. The Maritime 

Administrator must render a decision 

on the application within 90 days after 

the final hearing. 

Should a favorable record of decision 

be rendered and a license be issued, 

MARAD may include specific 

conditions related to design, 

construction, operations, environmental 

permitting, monitoring and mitigations, 

and financial responsibilities. If a 

license is issued, USCG, in coordination 

with other agencies as appropriate, 

would review and approve the 

deepwater port’s engineering, design, 

and construction; operations/security 

procedures; waterways management and 

regulated navigation areas; maritime 

safety and security requirements; risk 

assessment; and compliance with 

domestic and international laws and 

regulations for vessels that may call on 

the port. The deepwater port would be 

designed, constructed, and operated in 

accordance with applicable codes and 

standards. 

In addition, the installation of 

pipelines and other structures may 

require permits under Section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the 

Rivers and Harbors Act, which are 

administered by the USACE. 

Permits from the EPA may also be 

required pursuant to the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act, as amended, and the 

Clean Water Act, as amended. 

Summary of the Application 

The application proposes the 

ownership, construction, operation, and 

eventual decommissioning of the New 

Fortress Energy (‘‘NFE’’) Louisiana 

FLNG deepwater port (‘‘DWP’’) terminal 

approximately 16 nautical miles off the 

southeast coast of Grand Isle, Louisiana. 

The project is to source domestic 

natural gas from multiple supply hubs 

in the Southeast Louisiana local market, 

liquify, and export as liquefied natural 

gas (LNG) up to 2.8 million metric 

tonnes per annum (MTPA), from a 

deepwater port located in federal waters 

off Louisiana. 

The project will involve the 

installation of two nominal 1.4 MTPA 

liquefaction systems (FLNG1 and 

FLNG2) installed in the West Delta 

Outer Continental Shelf Lease Block 38 

(‘‘WD–38’’) in approximately 30 meters 

(98 feet) of water. Each system will 

contain three platforms consisting of 

natural gas processing, natural gas 

liquefaction, and utilities and 

accommodations. FLNG1 will 

incorporate self-elevating platforms (aka 

jack-up platforms or rigs), and FLNG2, 

which will be located adjacent to 

FLNG1, will utilize fixed platform 

structures. An additional self-elevating 

platform will house feed gas 

compressors. Other than temporary 

construction staging areas, there are no 

onshore facilities associated with the 

Project. Staging for construction, if 

needed, will utilize existing staging, 

laydown and warehouse space near Port 

Fourchon, Port Sulphur, or Venice. 

The feed gas supply to the project will 

be transported to the WD–38 site via the 

existing Kinetica Energy Express, LLC 

(‘‘Kinetica’’) offshore natural gas 

pipeline system and two newly 

constructed, 24-inch pipeline laterals 

connecting the Kinetica pipeline system 

to the Project. The Kinetica pipeline has 

been in continuous natural gas service 

since it was placed in service. The 

pipeline pressure is currently operating 

at 750 pounds per square inch (‘‘psi’’) 

with an onshore Maximum Allowable 

Operating Pressure (‘‘MAOP’’) of 1,000 

psi and an offshore MAOP of 1,250 psi. 

Both FLNG1 and FLNG2 will be 

connected to a single Floating LNG 

Storage Unit (‘‘FSU’’) via a flexible, 

partially submerged, 220-meter 

cryogenic hose transfer system. The FSU 

will be positioned approximately 107 

meters (350 feet) from the FLNGs. To 

export the LNG, the FSU will receive 

one (1) commercially traded LNG carrier 

(LNGC) at a time, which will have a 

nominal cargo capacity of 

approximately 125,000 m3 to 160,000 

m3. The LNGCs will berth along the 

starboard side of the FSU and receive 

the LNG cargo through a ship-to-ship 

transfer cargo transfer system. The 

LNGC will approach the DWP and 

depart from the DWP using an extension 

to the established safety fairway, which 

serves maritime traffic calling at the 

Louisiana Offshore Oil Port. 

Approximately 40 LNGCs will call on 

the Project per year. 

For more information please contact 

either Mr. Brian Barton, MARAD, or Ms. 

Galia Kaplan, as listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this document. 

Privacy Act 

The electronic form of all comments 

received into the Federal Docket 

Management System can be searched by 

the name of the individual submitting 

the comment (or signing the comment, 

if submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). The DOT 

Privacy Act Statement can be viewed in 

the Federal Register published on April 

11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70, pages 

19477–78) or by visiting 

www.regulations.gov. 

(Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1501, et seq.; 49 CFR 

1.93(h)) 

By Order of the Acting Maritime 

Administrator. 

T. Mitchell Hudson, Jr., 

Secretary, Maritime Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2022–08757 Filed 4–22–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2022–0007] 

Request for Comments on Barriers and 

Solutions for Submitting Toxicology 

Data to the Fatality Analysis Reporting 

System Pursuant to Recommendations 

for Toxicological Investigation of DrugImpaired Driving and Motor Vehicle 

Fatalities 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Request for comments on 

barriers to and solutions for providing 

toxicological data on drug-impaired 

driving investigations of motor vehicle 

fatalities to the Fatality Analysis 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2022 / Notices 24391 

Reporting System (FARS) that meet the 

recommendations described in 

Recommendations for Toxicological 

Investigations of Drug-Impaired Driving 

and Motor Vehicle Fatalities—2021 

Update. 

SUMMARY: Section 25025 of the 

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 

requires NHTSA to submit a report to 

Congress that, in accordance with 

recommendations made in 

Recommendations for Toxicological 

Investigations of Drug-Impaired Driving 

and Motor Vehicle Fatalities—2021 

Update, (1) ‘‘identifies any barriers the 

States encounter in submitting alcohol 

and drug toxicology results to the 

Fatality Analysis Reporting System;’’ 

and (2) ‘‘provides recommendations on 

how to address the barriers identified’’ 

pursuant to providing the data 

described in the above 

recommendations for toxicological 

investigations. This notice requests 

public comments on any barriers that 

States may encounter that would affect 

their ability to provide the toxicological 

data described in the 2021 Update of the 

Recommendations document to FARS, 

as well as recommendations to address 

those barriers identified. 

DATES: The request for comments is 

effective on April 25, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by DOT Docket ID Number 

NHTSA–2022–0007 using any of the 

following methods: 

Electronic submissions: Go to https:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

M–30, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 

20590. 

Hand Delivery: West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

Instructions: Each submission must 

include the Agency name and the 

Docket number for this Notice. Note that 

all comments received will be posted 

without change to https://

www.regulations.gov including any 

personal information provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

more information, contact Dr. Randolph 

Atkins, Jr., Chief, Behavioral Research 

Division, NPD–310, National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 

20590; Telephone number: (202) 366– 

5597; Email: randolph.atkins@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

There is a growing concern with drug 

impaired driving in the United States 

and around the globe. While alcohol is 

the drug most often linked to impaired 

driving and crashes, there are many 

other drugs that can impair driving 

ability and contribute to crashes.i Other 

potentially impairing drugs include 

some over-the-counter (OTC) drugs, 

some prescription drugs, and most 

illegal drugs. The use of drugs other 

than alcohol and in combination with 

alcohol is widespread. The National 

Survey on Drug Use and Health 

(NSDUH) estimated that 53.2 million 

people in the United States used illegal 

drugs in 2018, an increase of 2 million 

people since 2017. The 2018 survey also 

found that 16.9 million people reported 

misusing psychotherapeutics in 2018, 

and 12.6 million people reported 

driving under the influence of illegal 

drugs.ii The 2020 NSDUH found use of 

illicit drugs in the past year had 

increased to 59.3 million people or 

21.4% of the U.S. population age 12 or 

older,iii and an increase of 6.1 million 

people since 2018. 

NHTSA’s 2013–2014 National 

Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug 

Use by Drivers reported that 20.1% of all 

drivers surveyed on weekend nights 

tested positive for the presence of some 

drug, legal and/or illegal, other than 

alcohol, a statistically significant 

increase from the 16.3% of drugpositive drivers found in the 2007 

survey.iv NHTSA’s study of drug 

prevalence in road users with serious or 

fatal injuries admitted to five Level-1 

trauma centers or their corresponding 

Medical Examiner’s offices, found that 

in the months just prior to the current 

pandemic 50.8% of the drivers in the 

study had at least one drug in their 

system (including alcohol) with 17.6% 

having multiple drugs in their systems. 

This increased to 64.7% and 25.3%, 

respectively, during the pandemic in the 

second quarter of 2020. During this time 

cannabis presence increased from 

20.8% to 32.7% and opioid presence 

increased from 7.5% to 13.9% in this 

sample of drivers.v Clearly, many 

drivers on the roads today pose a 

potential danger to themselves and 

others because of potentially impairing 

drugs in their systems. 

Prescription and OTC drug use is 

quite common in America. The National 

Center for Health Statistics estimated 

that, from 2015–2018, 48.6% of 

Americans used at least one 

prescription medication in the past 30 

days, with 24% using three or more 

prescription medications in the last 30 

days and 12.8% using five or more 

prescription medications in the last 30 

days. The most frequently prescribed 

drugs were analgesics,vi which is 

reflected in the current opioid epidemic. 

Drivers increase the risk of drugimpaired driving because they may not 

be able to distinguish between 

prescription drugs that are impairing 

and those that are not.vii Furthermore, 

the simultaneous use of multiple 

therapeutic drugs or combining 

therapeutics with alcohol increases the 

risk of motor vehicle crashes because of 

the potential for interaction effects.viii

Another trend fueling concerns about 

drug-impaired driving is the shift in use, 

social acceptance, and policies 

regarding the use of marijuana. 

Marijuana is defined here as ‘‘all 

substances containing 

tetrahydrocannabinol.’’ ix The terms 

marijuana and cannabis are used 

interchangeably in this document. From 

2001–2002 to 2012–2013, the use of 

marijuana doubled from 4.1% to 9.5% 

of the U.S. adult population, with 30% 

of these users meeting the criteria for 

marijuana use disorder.x In 2020, 17.9% 

of Americans 12 years or older reported 

using cannabis in the past year 

(approximately 49.6 million people), 

and an estimated 5.1% of people 12 and 

older (approximately 14.2 million 

people) had a cannabis use disorder.xi

Though marijuana is still illegal under 

federal law, eighteen States and the 

District of Columbia have now legalized 

both recreational and medical use of 

marijuana and seventeen States have 

legalized the use of medical marijuana. 

Another thirteen states have legalized 

marijuana for specific medical 

conditions.xii In 2018, Canada legalized 

the recreational use of marijuana at the 

national level, and Mexico passed a bill 

legalizing recreational cannabis in 2021. 

This trend towards legalization has been 

accompanied by an increase in the 

presence of marijuana found in drivers. 

NHTSA’s National Roadside Survey 

found tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) 

presence in 12.7% of surveyed drivers 

in 2013–2014, up from 8.7% in the 2007 

survey. In a 2018 study by Washington 

State, 39.1% of drivers admitted to 

driving within 3 hours of using 

marijuana at least once in the previous 

year, and the biological results from the 

survey indicated that the presence of 

marijuana in surveyed drivers had 

doubled, from approximately 10%, to 

20% of all drivers after the state’s 

implementation of retail marijuana 

sales.xiii A NHTSA roadside survey in 

Washington State found similar results, 

with 7.8% of drivers testing positive for 

presence of THC prior to the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
24392 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2022 / Notices 

implementation of legal marijuana in 

the state. NHTSA found significant 

increases in THC presence in drivers six 

months (18.4%) and one year (18.9%) 

after legalization.xiv While linking the 

level of marijuana present in biological 

samples with level of impairment 

remains challenging, well-established 

evidence shows that marijuana use 

detrimentally affects driving-related 

skills. Marijuana use slows driver 

reaction time, creates problems with 

road tracking and maintaining lane 

position, and decreases cognitive 

performance and driver attention 

maintenance. Marijuana use in 

conjunction with other drugs, such as 

alcohol, can also have a compounding 

effect on impairment.xv The current 

shifts in policy and marijuana use 

increase the public health concerns 

regarding drug-impaired driving. 

The lack of adequate data to 

determine the scope and magnitude of 

the drug impaired driving problem 

presents a major challenge in addressing 

the issue of drug-impaired driving.xi xvi

Estimates show that comprehensive 

societal costs for alcohol-impaired 

driving were approximately $194 billion 

in 2010; xvii however, the data required 

for conducting similar analyses for the 

comprehensive societal costs of drugimpaired driving are lacking. The data 

currently available on drug-impaired 

driving and motor vehicle crashes have 

many shortcomings.xviii These include 

inconsistent drug testing policies and 

procedures across jurisdictions, such as 

considerable variability in who is tested, 

what drugs are tested for, detection 

capabilities of the laboratory, and what 

specimen matrices (blood, oral fluid, 

urine, etc.) are used. 

In 2009,xii and again in 2017,xi

NHTSA recommended that States 

provide separate statutes for alcoholand drug-impaired offenses, to provide 

incentive for ‘‘law enforcement officers 

to pursue a possible drug-impaired 

driving charge even when a BAC equal 

to or above the limit of .08 g/dL has 

already been established,’’ but few states 

currently have such statutes. Many 

jurisdictions only test for drugs when 

alcohol levels are below per se limits 

that indicate a driver, by law, is 

intoxicated by alcohol, and forego drug 

testing when alcohol per se limits are 

met. However, high percentages of 

specimens in impaired driving cases 

that were tested only for alcohol are 

often positive for other drugs, too.xix

Some jurisdictions do not perform any 

drug testing for motor vehicle crashes. 

Reporting of the toxicology findings is 

also inconsistent and often lacks 

sufficient specificity regarding whether 

it is reporting a screening test or a 

confirmation test, and other critical 

information, such as the drug panels 

and thresholds of detection used, is 

often left out. This widespread 

inconsistency in drug testing and lack of 

detail in reporting of toxicology on 

reports of motor vehicle crashes and 

fatalities creates significant problems for 

policy makers and traffic safety 

professionals trying to address the 

problem of drug-impaired driving. 

In many States, the large number of 

laboratories conducting post-mortem 

drug testing (typically ordered at the 

county level by the coroner or medical 

examiner) often do not look for the same 

core list of drugs and do not use 

comparable testing techniques with 

similar thresholds of detection because 

there is a lack of standardization 

regarding the drug panels and detection 

thresholds used for motor vehicle 

crashes. This prevents data from 

different laboratories from being 

combined to get a clear picture of drug 

use within the State. Similarly, in many 

States, individual law enforcement 

agencies contract with different 

laboratories which do not screen for the 

same set of core drugs, nor use 

comparable testing techniques with 

similar thresholds of detection. This 

limits the ability to characterize and 

monitor/conduct surveillance and better 

understand the issue of statewide driver 

drug use. ‘‘Currently, the limitations (in 

the drugged driving data) severely 

constrain interpretation of the data. 

Comparisons across labs, States, or years 

are problematic.’’ This is reflected at the 

national level in the FARS data.xx

A recent expert panel on the impact 

of marijuana on the driving while 

intoxicated (DWI) system, which 

included various experts from divisions 

in the departments of motor vehicles, 

law enforcement, and the courts and 

corrections departments as well as 

government data systems, reported a 

serious need for more and better data on 

drug use by drivers as well as 

standardized laboratory practices for 

drug toxicology, including which drugs 

are tested for, what detection thresholds 

of the drugs are used, confirmation 

testing results, and comprehensive 

reporting on the tests conducted and the 

matrices used.xxi Recent reports from 

the Governors Highway Safety 

Association (GHSA) have stressed the 

urgent need for better, more 

comprehensive toxicology testing and 

reporting of toxicology test results for 

motor vehicle crashes.xxii xxiii This need 

was also emphasized in NHTSA’s 

reports to Congress on marijuanaimpaired driving (2017) xi and drugimpaired driving (2009),xii and two 

National Transportation Safety Board 

(NTSB) reports on impaired 

driving.xxiv xxv

Recommendations and Request for 

Comments 

The Center for Forensic Science 

Research & Education (CFSRE) and the 

National Safety Council Alcohol, Drugs 

and Impairment Division (NSC–ADID) 

report, Updates for Recommendations 

for Drug Testing in DUID & Traffic 

Fatality Investigations (2016), 

summarized a survey it conducted of 

toxicology laboratories from across the 

country. The survey identified ‘‘current 

practices, capabilities, research needs 

and gathered information regarding the 

scope and sensitivity of testing.’’ xxvi

Subsequently, the Drugs, Technology, 

Pharmacology and Toxicology Section 

of the National Safety Council’s 

Alcohol, Drugs and Impairment 

Division reviewed the survey results 

and updated their 2013 published 

recommendations for the toxicology 

community,xxvii which were published 

as ‘‘Recommendations for Toxicological 

Investigation of Drug-Impaired Driving 

and Motor Vehicle Fatalities—2017 

Update’’ in the Journal of Analytical 

Toxicology.xxviii These 

recommendations are referenced in 

Section 25025 of Public Law 117–58. 

The CFRSE and NSC–ADID conducted a 

follow-up survey of laboratories in 2020, 

after which the recommendations were 

updated and published as 

‘‘Recommendations for Toxicological 

Investigation of Drug-Impaired Driving 

and Motor Vehicle Fatalities—2021 

Update’’ in the Journal of Analytical 

Toxicology.xxix These recommendations 

address the identified toxicology needs 

for drug-impaired driving cases. 

Coupled with comprehensive reporting 

of the toxicology findings, the 

widespread use of these toxicology 

recommendations could greatly enhance 

understanding of the scope and 

magnitude of drug-impaired driving and 

help traffic safety professionals better 

address this vital public health issue.xxx

The toxicology recommendations in the 

2021 Update are available, free of 

charge, online at: https://pubmed.ncbi.

nlm.nih.gov/34086916/. 

Given the growing national concern 

over drug-impaired driving and the 

clear need for standardized drugimpaired driving toxicological testing 

and comprehensive reporting on the 

toxicological results, NHTSA is 

preparing a Report to Congress on DrugImpaired Driving Data Collection that 

identifies the barriers to States in 

providing the toxicological data to 

FARS as described in the NSC–ADID 

document, recommends solutions to 

overcome those barriers, and describes 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2022 / Notices 24393 

the steps the Department of 

Transportation and NHTSA will take to 

assist States in improving toxicology 

testing in cases of motor vehicle crashes 

and reporting of alcohol and drug 

toxicology results in cases of motor 

vehicle crashes provided to FARS. Our 

first step in producing this report is the 

collection of information from the 

public on barriers and possible 

solutions. NHTSA therefore seeks 

public comment on any barriers that 

States may have to adopting these 

recommendations, and any comments 

on what is needed to overcome these 

barriers. 

As previously noted, the 

Recommendations for Toxicological 

Investigation of Drug-Impaired Driving 

and Motor Vehicle Fatalities—2021 

Update were developed by an expert 

panel of toxicologists based on the 

results of a national survey of toxicology 

laboratories. These voluntary 

recommendations are for forensic 

toxicological drug testing and reporting 

for all drivers, motorcycle and moped 

operators, bicyclists and pedestrians 

involved in fatal motor vehicle crashes, 

and all drivers who are arrested or 

convicted for impaired operation of 

motor vehicles, regardless of their tested 

Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) or 

Breath Alcohol Concentration (BrAC). 

The recommendations provide 

standardized lists of drugs, matrices 

(blood, oral fluid, urine, etc.), and 

detection threshold levels for testing. 

The guidelines include two tiers of 

drugs for testing: Tier 1 drugs (Table II 

in the document) are drugs that are 

found throughout the country and that 

should be tested for in all jurisdictions; 

Tier 2 drugs (Table III in the document) 

are less common or predominantly 

found in specific areas of the country, 

so they may only need to be routinely 

tested for in those localities or on a caseby-case basis. NHTSA believes that the 

voluntary adoption of these toxicology 

guidelines would greatly improve data 

collection, and support future initiatives 

by a wide variety of traffic safety 

stakeholders using this toxicological 

data to help reduce drug-impaired 

driving. It is critical that comprehensive 

and consistent data on this vital public 

health issue are available for use in all 

parts of the impaired-driving system, 

from law enforcement to adjudication 

and treatment to public policy. 

Drug impaired driving is a growing 

concern; however, the information 

currently available on the scope and 

magnitude of drug impaired driving is 

unclear. Today, there is great variation 

across the country regarding which 

drivers are tested for drug use, what 

specimens are collected for testing, what 

drugs are tested for, and what threshold 

detection levels are used for drug tests. 

Comprehensive and consistent 

toxicological data is needed to better 

inform the public and public policy on 

this growing public health problem. 

This testing and data are also essential 

to increasing the effectiveness of law 

enforcement and adjudication efforts in 

drug-impaired driving cases and to 

making America’s roads safer for the 

driving public. 

In support of our efforts to improve 

the toxicological data provided to FARS 

and the States, reduce the problem of 

drug-impaired driving, and ‘‘assist 

States in their efforts to increase public 

awareness of the dangers of drugimpaired driving,’’ xxxi NHTSA hereby 

requests public comment on the 

following: 

(1) Identification of any barriers or 

challenges that States currently 

encounter in submitting alcohol and 

drug toxicology results to the Fatality 

Analysis Reporting System (FARS). 

(2) Suggestions for overcoming those 

current barriers and challenges 

identified to improve the delivery of 

data to the FARS. 

(3) Identification of any barriers or 

challenges that States may encounter in 

collecting the toxicology data as 

described in Recommendations for 

Toxicological Investigation of DrugImpaired Driving and Motor Vehicle 

Fatalities—2021 Update (https://

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34086916/) 

and submitting those alcohol and drug 

toxicology results to the Fatality 

Analysis Reporting System (FARS). 

(4) Suggestions for overcoming those 

barriers and challenges identified for 

collecting the toxicological data as 

described in the Recommendations for 

Toxicological Investigation of DrugImpaired Driving and Motor Vehicle 

Fatalities—2021 Update to improve the 

delivery of the data to the FARS. 

Notes 

iCouper, F. and Logan, B. 2004. Drugs and 

Human Performance. DOT HS 809 725. 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration. Washington, DC. https://

www.wsp.wa.gov/breathtest/docs/webdms/ 

DRE_Forms/Publications/drug/Human_

Performance_Drug_Fact_Sheets-NHTSA.pdf. iiCenter for Behavioral Health Statistics 

and Quality. 2019. Results from the 2018 

National Survey on Drug Use and Health. 

SAMHSA, Rockville, MD. https://

www.samhsa.gov/data/report/2018-nsduhdetailed-tables. iiiSubstance Abuse and Mental Health 

Services Administration. (2021). Key 

substance use and mental health indicators 

in the United States: Results from the 2020 

National Survey on Drug Use and Health 

(HHS Publication No. PEP21–07–01–003, 

NSDUH Series H–56). Rockville, MD: Center 

for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration. Retrieved from https://

www.samhsa.gov/data/. iv Kelley-Baker, T., Berning, A., Ramirez, 

A., Lacey, J., Carr, K., Waeher, G., Moore, C. 

Pell, K., Yao, J., and Compton, R. 2017. 2013– 

2014 National Roadside Survey of Alcohol 

and Drug Use by Drivers: Drug Results. DOT 

HS 812 411. National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration. Washington, DC. https://

www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/ 

documents/13013-nrs_drug_092917_v6_

tag.pdf. vThomas, F.D., Berning, A., Darrah, J., 

Graham, L., Blomberg, R., Griggs, C., 

Crandall, M., Schulman, C., Kozar, R., 

Neavyn, M., Cunningham, K., Ehsani, J., Fell, 

J., Whitehill, J., Babu, K., Lai, J., and Rayner, 

M. (2020, October). Drug and alcohol 

prevalence in seriously and fatally injured 

road users before and during the COVID–19 

public health emergency (Report No. DOT HS 

813 018). National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration. viCenters for Disease Control and 

Prevention. 2019. National Center for Health 

Statistics. Therapeutic Drug Use. https://

www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/drug-usetherapeutic.htm. viiSmith, R., Turturici, M. and Camden, M. 

2018. Countermeasures Against Prescription 

and Over-the-Counter-Impaired Driving. 

AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. 

Washington, DC. http://aaafoundation.org/ 

wp-content/uploads/2018/10/VTTI_Rx_OTC_

FinalReport_VTTI-FINAL-complete-9.20.pdf. viiiAlda, A., Pharm, D., and Morse, M. 

2008. Multiple Medications and vehicle 

Crashes: Analysis of Databases. DOT HS 810 

858. National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration. Washington, DC. ixCurrent legislation (Section 25025, Pub. 

L. 17–58) references the definition of 

marijuana in the F.A.S.T. Act, Section 4008 

(d). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ 

PLAW-114publ94/html/PLAW114publ94.htm. xNational Institutes of Health. 2015. 

Prevalence of Marijuana Use Among U.S. 

Adults Doubles Over Past Decade. https://

www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/ 

prevalence-marijuana-use-among-us-adultsdoubles-over-past-decade. xiNational Institutes of Health. 2022. 

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/ 

research-reports/marijuana/what-scopemarijuana-use-in-united-states. xii Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. 

Alcohol and drugs: Marijuana laws. https:// 

www.iihs.org/topics/alcohol-and-drugs. xiii Grondel, D., Hoff, S., and Doane, D. 

Marijuana Use, Alcohol Use and Driving in 

Washington State. 2018.Washington Traffic 

Safety Commission. http://wtsc.wa.gov/wpcontent/uploads/dlm_uploads/2018/05/ 

Marijuana-and-Alcohol-Involvement-inFatal-Crashes-in-WA_FINAL.pdf. xivRamirez, A., Berning, A., Carr, K., 

Schere, M., Lacey, J., Kelley-Baker, T., and 

Fisher, D. 2016. Marijuana, Other Drugs, and 

Alcohol Use by Drivers in Washington State. 

DOT HS 812 299. National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration. Washington, DC. 

https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/ 

files/812299-washingtonstatedrugstudy.pdf. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
24394 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2022 / Notices 

xvCompton, R. 2017. Marijuana-Impaired 

Driving: A Report to Congress. DOT HS 812 

440. National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration. Washington, DC. https://

www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/ 

documents/812440-marijuana-impaireddriving-report-to-congress.pdf. xviCompton, R., Vegega, M., and Smither, 

D. 2009. Drug-Impaired Driving: 

Understanding the Problem and Ways to 

Reduce It—A Report to Congress. DOT HS 

811 268. National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration. Washington, DC. https://

rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/1949. xviiBlincoe, L.J., Miller, T.R., Zaloshnja, E., 

& Lawrence, B.A. (2015, May). The economic 

and societal impact of motor vehicle crashes, 

2010 (Revised) (Report No. DOT HS 812 013). 

Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration. xviiiBerning, A. and Smither, D. 2014. 

Understanding the Limitations of Drug Test 

Information, Reporting, and Testing Practices 

in Fatal Crashes. Traffic Safety Facts 

Research Note DOT HS 812 072. National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

Washington, DC. https://www.nhtsa.gov/ 

sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/812072- 

understandlimitsdrugtest-researchnote.pdf. xixLimoges, J., Tandy, A., and Brown, H. 

2009. A Retrospective Study of Drug 

Prevalence in Alcohol Related Driving 

Arrests. Presented at the annual meeting of 

the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. xxBerning, A., Smith, R.C., Drexler, M., & 

Wochinger, K. (2022, March). Drug testing 

and traffic safety: What you need to know 

(Report No. DOT HS 813 264). National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration. xxiNational Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, Governors Highway Safety 

Association, and Volpe National 

Transportation Systems Center. 2017. Impact 

of the Legalization and Decriminalization of 

Marijuana on the DWI System: Highlights 

from the Expert Panel Meeting. National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

Washington, DC. https://www.nhtsa.gov/ 

sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/expert_

dwi_panel.pdf. xxiiHedlund, J. 2017. Drug-Impaired 

Driving: A Guide for the States. Governors 

Highway Safety Association and Foundation 

for Advancing Alcohol Responsibility. 

https://www.ghsa.org/resources/druggeddriving-2017. xxiiiHedlund, J. 2018. Drug-Impaired 

Driving: Marijuana and Opioids Raise Critical 

Issues for States. Governors Highway Safety 

Association and Foundation for Advancing 

Alcohol Responsibility. https://

www.ghsa.org/resources/DUID18. xxiv 2013 NTSB Report, Reaching Zero: 

Actions to Eliminate Alcohol-Impaired 

Driving (https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safetystudies/Documents/SR1301.pdf). xxv 2018 NTSB Report, Pickup Truck 

Centerline Crossover Collision With Medium 

Size Bus on US Highway 83, Concan, Texas, 

March 29, 2017 (https://www.ntsb.gov/ 

investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/ 

HAR1802.pdf). xxvi D’Orazio, A., Scott, K., Mohr, A. and 

Logan, B. 2016. Updates for 

Recommendations for Drug testing in DUID 

& Traffic Fatality Investigations. The Center 

for Forensic Science Research & Education at 

the Frederic Rieders Family Foundation, 

2300 Stratford Avenue, Willow Grove, PA 

19090. https://www.forensicscience

education.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/ 

Full-Survey-Report.pdf. xxviiLogan, B., Lowrie, K., Turri, J., Yeakel, 

Limoges, J., Miles, A., Scarneo, C., Kerrigan, 

S., and Farrell, L. 2013. Recommendations 

for Toxicological Investigation of DrugImpaired Driving and Motor Vehicle 

Fatalities. Journal of Analytical Toxicology. 

Volume 37. August 2013, Pages 552–558. xxviiiLogan, B., D’Orazio, A., Mohr, A., 

Limoges, J., Miles, A., Scarneo, C., Kerrigan, 

S., Liddicoat, L., Scott, K., and Huestis, M. 

2018. Recommendations for Toxicological 

Investigation of Drug-Impaired Driving and 

Motor Vehicle Fatalities—2017 Update. 

Journal of Analytical Toxicology. Volume 42. 

Issue 2. March 2018, Pages 63–68. https://

academic.oup.com/jat/article/42/2/63/ 

4653729. xxix D’Orazio, A., Mohr, A., ChanHosokawa, A., Harper, C., Huestis, M., 

Limoges, J., Miles, A., Scarno, C., Kerrigan, 

S., Liddicoat, L., Scott, K., Logan, B. 

Recommendations for Toxicological 

Investigation of Drug-Impaired Driving and 

Motor Vehicle Fatalities—2021 Update. 

Journal of Analytical Toxicology. July, 2021. 

45(6):529–536. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.

nih.gov/34086916/. xxxWatson, M.W. and Mann, R.E. 2018. 

Harm reduction and drug-impaired driving: 

sharing the road?. Drugs: Education 

Prevention and Policy. 25:2, 105–108. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/ 

09687637.2017.1344620. xxxiFixing America’s Surface 

Transportation Act, Public Law 114–94, 4009 

(2015). 

Authority: 44 U.S.C. Section 

3506(c)(2)(A). 

Issued in Washington, DC. 

Nanda Narayanan Srinivasan, 

Associate Administrator, Research and 

Program Development. 

[FR Doc. 2022–08776 Filed 4–22–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission for OMB 

Review; Comment Request; Internal 

Revenue Service Form 7203 

AGENCY: Departmental Offices, U.S. 

Department of the Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the 

Treasury will submit the following 

information collection requests to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and clearance in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the 

date of publication of this notice. The 

public is invited to submit comments on 

these requests. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 25, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAMain. Find this particular 

information collection by selecting 

‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open 

for Public Comments’’ or by using the 

search function. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Copies of the submissions may be 

obtained from Molly Stasko by emailing 

PRA@treasury.gov, calling (202) 622– 

8922, or viewing the entire information 

collection request at www.reginfo.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: S Corporation Shareholder 

Stock and Debt Basis Limitations. 

OMB Control Number: 1545–2302. 

Type of Review: Extension without 

change of a currently approved 

collection. 

Description: Internal Revenue Code 

(IRC) Section 1366 determines the 

shareholder’s tax liability from an S 

corporation. IRC Section 1367 details 

the adjustments to basis including the 

increase and decrease in basis, income 

items included in basis, the basis of 

indebtedness, and the basis of inherited 

stock. Shareholders will use Form 7203 

to calculate their stock and debt basis, 

ensuring the losses and deductions are 

accurately claimed. 

Form Number: IRS Form 7203. 

Affected Public: Individuals and 

Households. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

70,000. 

Frequency of Response: On Occasion. 

Estimated Total Number of Annual 

Responses: 70,000. 

Estimated Time per Response: 3 hours 

46 minutes. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 257,600. 

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

Molly Stasko, 

Treasury PRA Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2022–08693 Filed 4–22–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission for OMB 

Review; Community Development 

Financial Institutions Funds Certificate 

of Material Events Form 

AGENCY: Departmental Offices, U.S. 

Department of the Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES