[Federal Register: May 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 90)]
[Notices]
[Page 26125-26126]
[DOCID:fr08my08-98]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2008-0263]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0011

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) and Analysis to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of
information: 1625-0011, Applications for Private Aids to Navigation and
for Class I Private Aids to Navigation on Artificial Islands/Fixed
Structures. Before submitting this ICR to OMB, the Coast Guard is
inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before July 7, 2008.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket [USCG-2008-
0263], please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (DMF) (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation (DOT), West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand deliver between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this notice as being available in the docket, will become part of this
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    A copy of the complete ICR is available through this docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are
available from Commandant (CG-611), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters,
(Attn: Mr. Arthur Requina), 2100 2nd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-
0001. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Arthur Requina, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this information
collection request should be granted based on it being necessary for
the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the
Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical
utility of the collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of
the collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of information subject to the collections; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. We will post all comments received, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any personal
information you provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use their
DMF. Please see the paragraph on DOT's ``Privacy Act Policy'' below.
    Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number [USCG-2008-0263], indicate the specific section of the
document to which each comment applies, providing a reason for each
comment. We recommend you include your name, mailing address, an e-mail
address, or other contact information in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail,
fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES; but please
submit them by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail
and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during the comment period. We may change
the documents supporting this collection of information or even the
underlying requirements in view of them.
    Viewing comments and documents: Go to http://www.regulations.gov to
view documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the
docket. Enter the docket number for this notice [USCG-2008-0263] in the
Search box, and click ``Go >>.'' You may also visit the DMF in room
W12-140 on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments
received in dockets by the name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Privacy
Act Statement of DOT in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477), or by visiting http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Information Collection Request

    Title: Applications for Private Aids to Navigation and for Class I
Private Aids to Navigation on Artificial Islands/Fixed Structures.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0011.
    Summary: Under provisions of 14 U.S.C. 633 and 33 U.S.C. 409, the
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security may prescribe
regulations for the marking of sunken vessels. These requirements for
notifying the Coast Guard are set forth in 33 CFR 64.11. The
information collected for the rule can only be obtained from the owners
of sunken vessels. The information collection requirements for private
aids to navigation and aids to navigation on artificial islands/fixed
structures are contained in 33 CFR 66.01-5 and 67.35-5, respectively.
    Need: The information on these private aid applications (CG Forms
2554 and 4143) provides the Coast Guard with vital information about
private aids to navigation and is essential for safe marine navigation.
These forms are required under 33 CFR parts 66 and 67. The information
is processed to ensure the private aid is in compliance with current
regulations. Additionally, these forms provide the Coast Guard with

information which is distributed to the public to advise of new or
changes to private aids to navigation.
    Respondents: Owners of private aids to navigation.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden remains 3,000 hours a year.

    Dated: April 28, 2006.
D.T. Glenn,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. E8-10265 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register: February 3, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 21)]
[Notices]
[Page 5950-5951]
[DOCID:fr03fe09-57]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request:

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213;

Extension:
    Regulation FD; OMB Control No. 3235-0536; SEC File No. 270-475.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management Budget
for extension and approval.
    Regulation FD (17 CFR 243.100 et seq.)--Other Disclosure Materials
requires public disclosure of material

information from issuers of publicly traded securities so that
investors have current information upon which to base investment
decisions. The purpose of the regulation is to require: (1) An issuer
that intentionally discloses material information, to do so through
public disclosure, not selective disclosure; and (2) an issuer that
learns that it has made a non-intentional material selective
disclosure, issuer to make prompt public disclosure of that
information. Regulation FD was adopted due to a concern that the
practice of selective disclosure leads to a loss of investor confidence
in the integrity of our capital markets. We estimate that approximately
13,000 issuers make Regulation FD disclosures approximately five times
a year for a total of 58,000 submissions annually, not including an
estimated 7,000 issuers who file Form 8-K to comply with Regulation FD.
We estimate that it takes 5 hours per response (58,000 responses x 5
hours) for a total burden of 290,000 hours annually. In addition, we
estimate that 25% of the 5 hours per response (1.25 hours) is prepared
by the filer for an annual reporting burden of 72,500 hours (1.25 hours
per response x 58,000 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information has
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the
burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Charles Boucher, Director/
CIO, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432
General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312; or send an e-mail to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    January 26, 2009.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-2228 Filed 2-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


the ISA concludes that the current evidence is inadequate to make
causality determinations for most effects, while finding the evidence
to be suggestive of a linkage between Pb and effects on reproduction
and development in marine invertebrates (ISA, Table 1-3, sections
6.3.12 and 6.4.21). In drawing judgments regarding causality for the
criteria air pollutants, the ISA places emphasis on ``evidence of
effects at doses (e.g., blood Pb concentration) or exposures (e.g., air
concentrations) that are relevant to, or somewhat above, those
currently experienced by the population.'' The ISA notes that the
``extent to which studies of higher concentrations are considered
varies . . . but generally includes those with doses or exposures in
the range of one to two orders of magnitude above current or ambient
conditions.'' Studies ``that use higher doses or exposures may also be
considered . . . [t]hus, a causality determination is based on weight
of evidence evaluation for health, ecological or welfare effects,
focusing on the evidence from exposures or doses generally ranging from
current levels to one or two orders of magnitude above current levels''
(ISA, pp. lx to lxi). Although considerable uncertainties are
recognized in generalizing effects observed under particular, small-
scale conditions, up to the ecosystem level of biological organization,
the ISA also determines that a causal relationship is also likely at
higher levels of biological organization between Pb exposures and
community and ecosystem-level effects in freshwater and terrestrial
systems (ISA, section <IP_ADDRESS>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Since the last Pb NAAQS review, the ISAs, which have
replaced CDs in documenting each review of the scientific evidence
(or air quality criteria), employ a systematic framework for
weighing the evidence and describing associated conclusions with
regard to causality, using established descriptors: ``causal''
relationship with relevant exposure, ``likely'' to be a causal
relationship, evidence is ``suggestive'' of a causal relationship,
``inadequate'' evidence to infer a causal relationship, and ``not
likely'' to be a causal relationship (ISA, Preamble).
    \71\ In determining that a causal relationship exists for Pb
with specific ecological or welfare effects, the EPA has concluded
that ``[e]vidence is sufficient to conclude that there is a causal
relationship with relevant pollutant exposures (i.e., doses or
exposures generally within one to two orders of magnitude of current
levels)'' (ISA, p. lxii).
    \72\ In determining a likely causal relationship exists for Pb
with specific ecological or welfare effects, the EPA has concluded
that ``[e]vidence is sufficient to conclude that there is a likely
causal association with relevant pollutant exposures . . . but
uncertainties remain'' (ISA, p. lxii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As in prior reviews of the Pb NAAQS, this review is focused on
those effects most pertinent to ambient air Pb exposures. Given the
reductions in ambient air Pb concentrations over the past decades,
these effects are generally those associated with the lowest levels of
Pb exposure that have been evaluated. Additionally, we recognize the
limitations on our ability to draw conclusions about environmental
exposures from ecological studies of organism-level effects, as most
studies were conducted in laboratory settings which may not accurately
represent field conditions or the multiple variables that govern
exposure.
    The relationship between ambient air Pb and ecosystem response is
important in making the connection between current emissions of Pb and
the potential for adverse ecological effects. The limitations in the
data available on this subject for the last review were significant.
There is no new evidence since the last review that substantially
improves our understanding of the relationship between ambient air Pb
and measurable ecological effects. As stated in the last review, the
role of ambient air Pb in contributing to ecosystem Pb has been
declining over the past several decades. It remains difficult to
apportion exposure between air and other sources to inform our
understanding of the potential for ecosystem effects that might be
associated with air emissions (ISA, section 6.4). Further, considerable
uncertainties also remain in drawing conclusions from effects evidence
observed under laboratory conditions with regard to effects expected at
the ecosystem level in the environment (ISA, section 6.5). In summary,
the ISA concludes that ``[r]ecent information available since the 2006
Pb AQCD, includes additional field studies in both terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems, but the connection between air concentration and
ecosystem exposure continues to be poorly characterized for Pb and the
contribution of atmospheric Pb to specific sites is not clear'' (ISA,
section 6.5).
    The bioavailability of Pb is also an important component of
understanding the effects Pb is likely to have on organisms and
ecosystems (ISA, section 6.3.3, 6.4.4 and 6.4.14). It is the amount of
Pb that can interact within the organism that can lead to toxicity, and
there are many factors which govern this interaction (ISA, sections
6.2.1 and 6.3.3). The bioavailability of metals varies widely depending
on the physical, chemical, and biological conditions under which an
organism is exposed (ISA, section 6.3.3). Studies newly available since
the last Pb NAAQS review provide additional insight into factors that
influence the bioavailability of Pb to specific organisms (ISA, section
6.3.3). On the whole, the current evidence, including that newly
available in this review, supports previous conclusions regarding
environmental conditions affecting bioavailability and the associated
potential for adverse effects of Pb on organisms and ecosystems (ISA,
section 6.3.3). Looking beyond organism-level evidence, the evidence of
adversity in natural systems remains sparse due to the difficulty in
determining the effects of confounding factors such as co-occurring
metals or system characteristics that influence bioavailability of Pb
in field studies. As summarized in the ISA, ``in natural environments,
modifying factors affect Pb bioavailability and toxicity and there are
considerable uncertainties associated with generalizing effects
observed in controlled studies to effects at higher levels of
biological organization'' and ``[f]urthermore, available studies on
community and ecosystem-level effects are usually from contaminated
areas where Pb concentrations are much higher than typically
encountered in the environment'' (ISA, p. xcvi).
    There is no new evidence since the last review that substantially
improves our understanding of the relationship between ambient air Pb
and measurable ecological effects beyond what was understood in the
last review. As stated in the last review, the role of ambient air Pb
in contributing to ecosystem Pb has been declining over the past
several decades. It remains difficult to apportion exposure between air
and other sources to better inform our understanding of the potential
for ecosystem effects that might be associated with air emissions. As
noted in the ISA, ``[t]he amount of Pb in ecosystems is a result of a
number of inputs and it is not currently possible to determine the
contribution of atmospherically-derived Pb from total Pb in
terrestrial, freshwater or saltwater systems'' (ISA, section 6.5).
Further, considerable uncertainties also remain in drawing conclusions
from evidence of effects observed under laboratory conditions with
regard to effects expected at the ecosystem level in the environment.
In many cases it is difficult to characterize the nature and magnitude
of effects and to quantify relationships between ambient concentrations
of Pb and ecosystem response due to the existence of multiple
stressors, variability in field conditions, and differences in Pb
bioavailability at that level of organization (ISA, section 6.5). In
summary, the ISA concludes that ``[r]ecent information available since
the 2006 Pb AQCD, includes additional field studies in both terrestrial
and aquatic ecosystems, but the connection between air concentration
and ecosystem exposure continues to be poorly characterized for Pb and
the contribution of atmospheric Pb to specific sites is not clear''
(ISA, section 6.5).
2. Overview of Risk Assessment Information
    The risk assessment information available in this review and
summarized

here is based on the screening-level risk assessment performed for the
last review, described in the 2006 REA, 2007 Staff Paper and 2008
notice of final decision (73 FR 66964, November 12, 2008), as
considered in the context of the evidence newly available in this
review (PA, section 5.2). Careful consideration of the information
newly available in this review, with regard to designing and
implementing a full REA for this review, led us to conclude that
performance of a new REA for this review was not warranted (REA
Planning Document, section 3.3). The CASAC Pb Review Panel generally
concurred with the conclusion that a new REA was not warranted for the
secondary standard in this review (Frey, 2011b). Accordingly, the
exposure/risk information considered in this review is drawn primarily
from the 2006 REA as summarized in the PA, section 5.2 and Appendix 5A;
REA Planning Document, section 3.1.
    The 2006 screening-level assessment focused on estimating the
potential for ecological risks associated with ecosystem exposures to
Pb emitted into ambient air (PA, section 5.2; 2006 REA, section 7).
Both a national-scale screen and a case study approach were used to
evaluate the potential for ecological impacts that might be associated
with atmospheric deposition of Pb (2006 REA, section 7.1.2). Detailed
descriptions of the location-specific case studies and the national
screening assessment, key findings of the risk assessment for each, and
an interpretation of the results with regard to past air quality
conditions are presented in the 2006 REA. This information, which is
outlined below, is summarized more fully in section 5.2 of the PA and
section III.C of the proposal for this review (80 FR 317-319, January
5, 2015).
    In interpreting the results from the 2006 REA, the PA considers the
availability of new evidence that may inform interpretation of risk
under the now-current standard (PA, section 5.2). Factors that could
alter our interpretation of risk would include new evidence of harm at
lower concentrations of Pb, new linkages that enable us to draw more
explicit conclusions as to the air contribution of environmental
exposures, and new methods of interpreting confounding factors that
were largely uncontrolled in the previous risk assessment. In general,
however, such new evidence is limited, and the key uncertainties
identified in the last review remain today. For example, with regard to
new evidence of Pb effects at lower concentrations, it is necessary to
consider that the evidence of adversity in natural systems due
specifically to Pb is limited, in no small part because of the
difficulty in determining the effects of confounding factors such as
multiple metals and modifying factors influencing bioavailability in
field studies, as noted in section III.A.1 above. Modeling of Pb-
related exposure and risk to ecological receptors is subject to a wide
array of sources of both variability and uncertainty resulting in
differences in Pb bioavailability as well as exposure (USEPA, 2005b).
Additionally, there are also significant difficulties in quantifying
the role of air emissions under the current standard, which is
significantly lower than the previous standard. As recognized in the
PA, Pb deposited before the standard was enacted remains in soils and
sediments, complicating interpretations regarding the impact of the
current standard (PA, section 1.3.2). For example, media in ecosystems
across the U.S. are still recovering from the past period of greater
atmospheric emissions and deposition, as well as from Pb derived from
nonair sources (PA, section 1.3.2).
    As summarized in the PA and proposal, we have considered what the
risk information from the 2006 REA analyses indicates regarding the
potential for adverse welfare effects to result from levels of air-
related Pb that would meet the now-current standard. The circumstances
assessed in all but one of the case study locations, however, likely
include a history of ambient air Pb concentrations that exceeded the
NAAQS. Consequently, these analyses are not considered informative for
predicting effects at the far lower concentrations associated with the
current NAAQS. The nationwide surface water screen was likewise not
particularly informative because potential confounding by both nonair
inputs and resuspension of Pb related to historic sources was not
easily accounted for. The remaining case study was a site remote from
Pb sources for which atmospheric deposition was expected to be the
primary contributor to media Pb concentrations without obvious
confounding inputs. This case study, based on a summary review of
published findings for the study site, concluded that atmospheric Pb
inputs do not directly affect stream Pb levels because deposited Pb is
almost entirely retained in the soil profile, with the soil serving as
a Pb sink, appreciably reducing pore water Pb concentrations as it
moves through the soil layers to streams. As a result, this case study
(and the publications on which it was based) concluded that the
contribution of dissolved Pb from soils to streams was insignificant
(2006 REA, Appendix E). Additionally, we note that the 2006 CD, in
considering the findings for this site and other terrestrial sites with
Pb burdens derived primarily from long-range atmospheric transport,
found that ``[d]espite years of elevated atmospheric Pb inputs and
elevated concentrations in soils, there is little evidence that sites
affected primarily by long-range Pb transport have experienced
significant effects on ecosystem structure or function'' (2006 CD, p.
AX7-98). The PA and proposal concluded that this information suggests
that the now-lower ambient air concentrations associated with meeting
the current standard would not be expected to directly impact stream Pb
levels (PA, p. 6-10; 80 FR 319, January 5, 2015).

C. Conclusions on the Secondary Standard

1. Basis for the Proposed Decision
    The basis for the proposed decision, which is described in section
III.D of the proposal, is very briefly summarized here. In considering
the welfare effects evidence and risk-based information with respect to
the adequacy of the current secondary standard, the Administrator
considered the array of evidence newly assessed in the ISA with regard
to the degree to which this evidence supports conclusions about the
effects of Pb in the environment that were drawn in the last review and
the extent to which it reduces previously recognized areas of
uncertainty. Further, she considered the current evidence and
associated conclusions about the potential for effects to occur as a
result of the much lower ambient Pb concentrations allowed by the
current secondary standard (set in 2008) than those allowed by the
prior standard, which was the focus of the last review. These
considerations informed the Administrator's proposed decision to retain
the current standard.
    With regard to the evidence, the proposal noted there is very
limited evidence to relate specific ecosystem effects with current
ambient air concentrations of Pb through deposition to terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems and subsequent movement of deposited Pb through the
environment (e.g., soil, sediment, water, organisms). The potential for
ecosystem effects of Pb from atmospheric sources under conditions
meeting the current standard is difficult to assess due to limitations
on the availability of information to fully characterize the
distribution of Pb from the atmosphere into ecosystems over the long
term, as well as limitations

on information on the bioavailability of atmospherically deposited Pb
(as affected by the specific characteristics of the receiving
ecosystem). Therefore, while there are newly available field studies in
this review, ``the connection between air concentration and ecosystem
exposure and associated potential for welfare effects continues to be
poorly characterized for Pb'' (ISA, section 6.4). Such a connection is
even harder to characterize with respect to the current standard than
it was in the last review with respect to the previous, much higher
standard.
    With regard to the currently available risk and exposure
information, which continues to be sufficient to conclude that the 1978
standard was not providing adequate protection to ecosystems, the
proposal concluded that, when considered with regard to air-related
ecosystem exposures likely to occur with air Pb levels that just meet
the now-current standard, this current information also does not
provide evidence of adverse effects under the current standard.
Accordingly, in consideration of the risk information in combination
with the current evidence and the associated data gaps and
uncertainties, the Administrator proposed that the current standards be
retained, without revision.
2. CASAC Advice in This Review
    In its review of the draft PA, the CASAC agreed with staff's
preliminary conclusions that the available information since the last
review is not sufficient to warrant revision to the secondary standard
(Frey, 2013b). On this subject, the CASAC letter said that ``[o]verall,
the CASAC concurs with the EPA that the current scientific literature
does not support a revision to the . . . Secondary Pb NAAQS'' (Frey,
2013b, p. 1). It additionally stated that ``[g]iven the existing
scientific data, the CASAC concurs with retaining the current secondary
standard without revision'' (Frey, 2013b, p. 2). The CASAC additionally
noted areas for additional research to address data gaps and
uncertainties (Frey, 2013b, p. 2).
3. Comments on the Proposed Decision
    All of the public comments on the proposed decision to retain the
current secondary standard, without revision, indicated support. These
commenters include the NACAA, as well as both of the state agencies and
nearly all of the industry organizations that submitted comments. Only
a small subset of this group provided rationales for their concurrence
with EPA's proposed decision. These commenters emphasized limitations
and uncertainties in the welfare effects evidence, including
particularly those with regard to relationships between ambient air Pb
concentrations, levels of deposition, ecosystem exposures, and adverse
public welfare effects. One commenter also noted the CASAC's
concurrence with the EPA conclusion that the current evidence does not
support revision to the standard, and that information newly available
in this review does not substantially improve our understanding in the
identified areas of uncertainty or that would indicate that the current
standard is inadequate. The EPA generally agrees with these commenters
and with the CASAC regarding the adequacy of the current secondary
standard and the lack of support for revision of the standard.
4. Administrator's Conclusions
    Based on the evidence and risk assessment information that is
available in this review concerning the ecological effects and
potential public welfare impacts of Pb emitted into ambient air, the
Administrator concludes that the current secondary standard provides
the requisite protection of public welfare from adverse effects and
should be retained. In considering the adequacy of the current
standard, the Administrator has considered the assessment of the
available evidence and conclusions contained in the ISA; the staff
assessment of and conclusions regarding the policy-relevant technical
information, including screening-level risk information, presented in
the PA; the advice and recommendations from CASAC; and public comments.
In reaching her decision, the Administrator gives weight to the PA
conclusions, with which CASAC has concurred, and takes note of key
aspects of the rationale presented for those conclusions which
contribute to her decision.
    As she did in reaching her proposed decision, the Administrator
notes that the body of evidence on the ecological effects of Pb,
expanded in some aspects since the last review, continues to support
identification of ecological effects in organisms relating to growth,
reproduction, and survival as the most relevant endpoints associated
with Pb exposure. In consideration of the appreciable influence of
site-specific environmental characteristics on the bioavailability and
toxicity of environmental Pb in our assessment, there is a lack of
studies conducted under conditions closely reflecting the natural
environment. The currently available evidence, while somewhat expanded
since the last review, does not include evidence of significant effects
at lower concentrations or evidence of higher-level ecosystem effects
beyond those reported in the last review. There continue to be
significant difficulties in relating effects evidence from laboratory
studies to the natural environment and linking those effects to ambient
air Pb concentrations. Further, as the proposal and the PA note, the
EPA is aware of no new critical loads information that would inform our
interpretation of the public welfare significance of the effects of Pb
in various U.S. ecosystems (PA, section 5.1). In summary, while new
research has added to the understanding of Pb biogeochemistry and
expanded the list of organisms for which Pb effects have been
described, there remains a significant lack of knowledge about the
potential for adverse effects on public welfare from ambient air Pb in
the environment and the exposures that occur from such air-derived Pb,
particularly under conditions meeting the current standard (PA, section
6.2.1). Thus, the scientific evidence presented in detail and assessed
in the ISA, inclusive of that newly available in this review, is not
substantively changed, most particularly with regard to the adequacy of
the now-current standard, from the information that was previously
available and supported the decision for revision in the last review
(PA, section 6.2.1).
    With respect to exposure/risk-based considerations identified in
the PA, the Administrator notes the complexity of interpreting the
previous risk assessment with regard to the ecological risk of ambient
air Pb associated with conditions meeting the current standard and the
associated limitations and uncertainties of such assessments. The
Administrator additionally takes note that the previous assessment is
consistent with and generally supportive of the evidence-based
conclusions about Pb in the environment, yet the limitations on our
ability to apportion Pb between past and present air contributions and
between air and nonair sources remain significant.
    In summary, based on the considerations summarized above, the
Administrator judges that the information available in this review of
the Pb secondary standard, including the currently available welfare
effects evidence and exposure/risk information, does not call into
question the adequacy of the current standard to provide the requisite
protection for public welfare (PA, section 6.3). In so doing, she also
notes the advice from CASAC in this review, including that ``[g]iven
the existing scientific data, the CASAC concurs with retaining the
current secondary standard without revision.''

Thus, the Administrator concludes that the current standard is
requisite and should be retained.

C. Decision on the Secondary Standard

    For the reasons discussed above, and taking into account
information and assessments presented in the ISA and PA, the advice
from CASAC, and consideration of public comments, the Administrator
concludes that the current secondary standard for Pb is requisite to
protect public welfare from known or anticipated adverse effects and is
retaining the standard without revision.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for
review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA. There are no information collection requirements directly
associated with revisions to a NAAQS under section 109 of the CAA and
this action does not make any revisions to the NAAQS.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. Rather, this
action retains, without revision, existing national standards for
allowable concentrations of Pb in ambient air as required by section
109 of the CAA. See also American Trucking Associations v. EPA. 175
F.3d at 1044-45 (NAAQS do not have significant impacts upon small
entities because NAAQS themselves impose no regulations upon small
entities).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
the UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 and does not significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on
any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes. This action does not change existing
regulations; it retains the current NAAQS for Pb, without revision. The
NAAQS protect public health, including the health of at-risk or
sensitive groups, with an adequate margin of safety and protect public
welfare from known or anticipated adverse effects. Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866. We
note, however, that the primary standard retained with this action
provides protection for children and other at-risk populations against
an array of adverse health effects, most notably including nervous
system effects in children. The health effects evidence and risk
assessment information for this action, which focuses on children, is
summarized in sections II.A.2, II.A.3 and II.A.4, and described in the
ISA and PA, copies of which are in the public docket for this action.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This action does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
action described in this document is to retain, without revision, the
existing NAAQS for Pb.
    The NAAQS decisions are based on an explicit and comprehensive
assessment of the current scientific evidence and associated exposure/
risk analyses. More specifically, the EPA expressly considers the
available information regarding health effects among at-risk
populations, including that available for low-income populations and
minority populations, in decisions on the primary (health-based) NAAQS.
Where low-income populations or minority populations are among the at-
risk populations, the decision on the standard is based on providing
protection for these and other at-risk populations and lifestages.
Where such populations are not identified as at-risk populations, NAAQS
that are established to provide protection to the at-risk populations
would also be expected to provide protection to all other populations,
including low-income populations and minority populations.
    As discussed in sections II.A.2.d and II.B above, and in sections
II.A and II.B of the proposal, the EPA expressly considered the
available information regarding health effects among at-risk
populations in reaching the decision that the existing primary (health-
based) standard for Pb is requisite. The ISA and PA for this review,
which include identification of populations at risk from Pb health
effects, are available in the docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0108. Based on
consideration of this information and the full evidence base,
quantitative exposure/risk analyses, advice from the CASAC and
consideration of public comments, the Administrator concludes that the
existing NAAQS for Pb protect public health, including the health of
at-risk or sensitive groups, with an adequate margin of safety and
protect public welfare from known or anticipated adverse effects (as
discussed in sections II.B.4 and III.B.4 above).

K. Determination Under Section 307(d)

    Section 307(d)(1)(V) of the CAA provides that the provisions of
section

307(d) apply to ``such other actions as the Administrator may
determine.'' Pursuant to section 307(d)(1)(V), the Administrator
determines that this action is subject to the provisions of section
307(d).

L. Congressional Review Act

    The EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and
to the Comptroller General of the U.S. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

References

Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention (ACCLPP).
(2012). Low Level Lead Exposure Harms Children: A Renewed Call for
Primary Prevention. Report of the Advisory Committee on Childhood
Lead Poisoning Prevention of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. January 4, 2012. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/ACCLPP/blood_lead_levels.htm.
Alliance to End Childhood Lead Poisoning. (1991). The First
Comprehensive National Conference: Final Report. October 6,7,8,
1991.
Bellinger, D. (2008). Email message to Jee-Young Kim, U.S. EPA.
February 13, 2008. Docket document number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0108-0031.
Bellinger, D.; Leviton, A.; Sloman, J. (1990). Antecedents and
correlates of improved cognitive performance in children exposed in
utero to low levels of lead. Environ Persp 89: 5-11.
Bellinger, D.; Leviton, A.; Waternaux, C.; Needleman, H.;
Rabinowitz, M. (1988). Low-level lead exposure, social class, and
infant development. Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 10: 497-503. {This
journal issue is dated November-December 1988, while the date in the
reference header on reprints available as pdfs is 1989.{time}
Bellinger, D.C. and Needleman, H.L. (2003). Intellectual impairment
and blood lead levels [letter]. N. Engl. J. Med. 349: 500.
Brunekreef, B. (1984). The relationship between air lead and blood
lead in children: a critical review. Science of the total
environment, 38: 79-123.
Budtz-Jorgensen, E.; Bellinger, D.; Lanphear, B.; Grandjean, P.
(2013). An international pooled analysis for obtaining a benchmark
dose for environmental lead exposure in children. Risk Analysis,
Vol. 33, No. 3.
California Environmental Protection Agency. (2007). Development of
Health Criteria for School Site Risk Assessment Pursuant to Health
and Safety Code Section 901(g): Child-specific benchmark change in
blood lead concentration for school site risk assessment. Final
Report, April 2007. Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment.
Canfield, R.L.; Henderson, C.R., Jr.; Cory-Slechta, D.A.; Cox, C.;
Jusko, T.A.; Lanphear, B.P. (2003). Intellectual impairment in
children with blood lead concentrations below 10 [mu]g per
deciliter. N. Engl. J. Med. 348: 1517-1526.
Canfield, R.L. (2008). Email messages to Jee-Young Kim, U.S. EPA.
February 7 through August 12, 2008. Docket document number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0108-0037.
Cavender, K. (2014). Memorandum to Ambient Monitoring Rule Docket
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0619). Supporting Information for Reconsideration
of Existing Requirement to Monitor Lead at Urban NCore Sites. Docket
Identifier EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0619-0002.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2005) Preventing
lead poisoning in young children. A statement by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention August 2005. USDHHS, CDC, Atlanta.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). CDC Response to
Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention
Recommendations in ``Low Level Lead Exposure Harms Children: A
Renewed Call of Primary Prevention.'' Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. June 7, 2012.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2015). Fourth national
report on human exposure to environmental chemicals, updated tables,
February 2015. http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/pdf/fourthreport_updatedtables_Feb2015.pdf.
Chandramouli, K; Steer, C.D.; Ellis, M; Emond, A.M. (2009). Effects
of early childhood lead exposure on academic performance and
behaviour of school age children. Arch Dis Child 94: 844-848.
Frey, H.C. (2011a). Letter from Dr. H. Christopher Frey, Chair,
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Lead Review Panel, to
Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. Re: Consultation on EPA's Draft
Integrated Review Plan for the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Lead. May 25, 2011.
Frey, H.C. (2011b). Letter from Dr. H. Christopher Frey, Chair,
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Lead Review Panel, to
Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. Re: Consultation on EPA's Review of
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead: Risk and
Exposure Assessment Planning Document. October 14, 2011.
Frey, H.C. and Samet, J.M. (2011). Letter from Drs. H. Christopher
Frey, Chair, Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Lead Review
Panel, and Jonathan M. Samet, Chair, Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee, to Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. Re: CASAC Review of the
EPA's Integrated Science Assessment for Lead (First External Review
Draft--May 2011). December 9, 2011.
Frey, H.C. (2013a). Letter from Dr. H. Christopher Frey, Chair,
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee Lead Review Panel, to Acting Administrator Bob
Perciasepe. Re: CASAC Review of the EPA's Integrated Science
Assessment for Lead (Third External Review Draft--November 2012).
June 4, 2013.
Frey, H.C. (2013b). Letter from Dr. H. Christopher Frey, Chair,
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee Lead Review Panel, to Acting Administrator Bob
Perciasepe. Re: CASAC Review of the EPA's Policy Assessment for Lead
(External Review Draft--January 2013). June 4, 2013.
Grandjean, P.; Landrigan, P.J. (2014). Neurobehavioural effects of
developmental toxicity. Lancet Neurol 13(3):330-8.
Gulson, B.L.; Mizon, K.J.; Davis, J.D.; Palmer, J.M.; Vimpani, G.
(2004). Identification of sources of lead in children in a primary
zinc-lead smelter environment. Environ Health Perspect 112: 52-60.
Henderson, R. (2007a). Letter from Dr. Rogene Henderson, Chair,
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, to Administrator Stephen L.
Johnson. Re: Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee's (CASAC)
Review of the 1st Draft Lead Staff Paper and Draft Lead Exposure and
Risk Assessments. March 27, 2007.
Henderson, R. (2007b). Letter from Dr. Rogene Henderson, Chair,
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, to Administrator Stephen L.
Johnson. Re: Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee's (CASAC)
Review of the 2nd Draft Lead Human Exposure and Health Risk
Assessments Document. September 27, 2007.
Henderson, R. (2008a). Letter from Dr. Rogene Henderson, Chair,
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, to Administrator Stephen L.
Johnson. Re: Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee's (CASAC)
Review of the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) for the
NAAQS for lead. January 22, 2008.
Henderson, R. (2008b). Letter from Dr. Rogene Henderson, Chair,
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, to Administrator Stephen L.
Johnson. Re: Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee's (CASAC)
Review of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the NAAQS for lead.
July 18, 2008.
Henn, B.C.; Coull, B.A.; Wright, R.O. (2014). Chemical mixtures and
children's health. Curr Opin Pediatr 26:223-229.
Hilts, S.R. (2003). Effect of smelter emission reductions on
children's blood lead levels. Sci. Total Environ. 303: 51-58.
ICF International. (2006). Lead Human Exposure and Health Risk
Assessments and Ecological Risk Assessment for Selected Areas. Pilot
Phase. Draft Technical Report with Appendices. Prepared for the U.S.
EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, NC. December 2006.
Jacobs, D.E.; Cali, S.; Welch, A.; Catalin, B.; Dixon, S.L.; Evens,
A.; Mucha, A.P.; Vahl, N.; Erdal, S.; Bartlett, J. (2013). Lead and
other heavy metals in fust fall from single-family housing
demolition. Public Health Reports 128:454-462.
Jakubowski, M. (2011). Low-level environmental lead exposure and

intellectual impairment in children--the current concepts of risk
assessment. Int. J Occup Med Environ Health. 24(1): 1-7.
Jones, R.L.; Homa, D.M.; Meyer, P.A.; Brody, D.J.; Caldwell, K.L.;
Pirkle, J.L.; Brown, M.J. (2009). Trends in blood lead levels and
blood lead testing among US children aged 1 to 5 Years, 1988-2004.
Pediatrics 123: e376-e385.
Kirrane, E; Patel, M. (2014). Memorandum to Integrated Science
Assessment for Lead Docket (EPA-HQ-ORD-2011-0051). Docket document
number EPA-HQ-ORD-2011-0051-0050. May 9, 2014.
Kirrane, E. (2016). Memorandum to Lead NAAQS Review Docket (EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0108). Provisional Consideration of ``New'' Studies Cited
by Commenters. June 28, 2016.
Kordas, K; Canfield, R.L.; Lopez, P; Rosado, J.L.; Vargas, G.G.;
Cebrian, M.E.; Rico, J.A.; Ronquillo, D.; Stoltzfus, R.J. (2006).
Deficits in cognitive function and achievement in Mexican first-
graders with low blood lead concentrations. Environ Res 100: 371-
386.
Lanphear, B.P.; Roghmann, K.J. (1997). Pathways of lead exposure in
urban children. Environ Res 74: 67-73.
Lanphear, B.P.; Matte, T.D.; Rogers, J.; Clickner, R.P.; Dietz, B.;
Bornschein, R.L.; Succop, P.; Mahaffey, K.R.; Dixon, S.; Galke, W.;
Rabinowitz, M.; Farfel, M.; Rohde, C.; Schwartz, J.; Ashley, P.;
Jacobs, D.E. (1998). The contribution of lead-contaminated house
dust and residential soil to children's blood lead levels: A pooled
analysis of 12 epidemiologic studies. Environ Res 79: 51-68.
Lanphear, B.P.; Hornung, R.; Khoury, J.; Yolton, K.; Baghurst, P.;
Bellinger, D.C.; Canfield, R.L.; Dietrich, K.N.; Bornschein, R.;
Greene, T.; Rothenberg, S.J.; Needleman, H.L.; Schnaas, L.;
Wasserman, G.; Graziano, J.; Roberts, R. (2005). Low-level
environmental lead exposure and children's intellectual function: an
international pooled analysis. Environ. Health Perspect. 113: 894-
899.
Miranda, M.L.; Kim, D.; Reiter, J.; Overstreet Galeano, M.A.;
Maxson, P. (2009). Environmental contributors to the achievement
gap. Neurotoxicology 30: 1019-1024.
National Toxicology Program. (2011). Draft Monograph on Health
Effects of Low-Level Lead, October 14, 2011. Office of Health
Assessment and Translation, Division of the National Toxicology
Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Peer
Review Date: November 17-18, 2011.
New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. (2010). Lead
poisoning: prevention identification, and management. City Health
Information 29(5):41-48, at 41, 43-44.
Nishioka, E.; Yokoyama, K.; Matsukawa, T.; Vigeh, M.; Hirayama, S.;
Ueno, T.; Miida, T.; Makino, Sh.; Takeda, S. (2014). Evidence that
birth weight is decreased by maternal lead levels below 5[mu]g/dl in
male newborns. Reproductive Toxicol 47:21-26.
Rothenberg, S.J.; Rothenberg, J.C. (2005). Testing the dose-response
specification in epidemiology: Public health and policy consequences
for lead. Environ. Health Perspect. 113: 1190-1195.
Samet, J.M. and Frey, H.C. (2012). Letter from Drs. Jonathan M.
Samet, Chair, Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and H.
Christopher Frey, Chair, Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
Lead Review Panel, to Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. Re: CASAC
Review of the EPA's Integrated Science Assessment for Lead (Second
External Review Draft--February 2012). July 20, 2012.
T[eacute]llez-Rojo, M.M.; Bellinger, D.C.; Arroyo-Quiroz, C.;
Lamadrid-Figueroa, H.; Mercado-Garc[iacute]a, A.; Schnaas-Arrieta,
L.; Wright, R.O.; Hern[aacute]ndez-Avila, M.; Hu, H. (2006).
Longitudinal associations between blood lead concentrations < 10
[mu]g/dL and neurobehavioral development in environmentally-exposed
children in Mexico City. Pediatrics 118: e323-e330.
T[eacute]llez-Rojo, M. (2008). Email message to Jee-Young Kim, U.S.
EPA. February 11, 2008. Docket document number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0108-
0167.
UNEP Governing Council. (2011). Proceedings of the Governing
Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum at its twenty-sixth
session. Decision number 26/3. UNEP/GC.26/19. 24 February 2011.
Available at: http://www.unep.org/gc/gc26/docs/Proceedings/K1170817_E-GC26-19_Proceedings.pdf.
UNEP Governing Council. (2013). Decisions adopted by the Governing
Council at its twenty-seventh session and first universal session.
Decision 27/12: Chemicals and waste management. February 2013.
Available at: http://www.unep.org/GC/GC27/Docs/decisions/GC_27_decisions-English.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1977). Air quality criteria
for lead. Research Triangle Park, NC: Health Effects Research
Laboratory, Criteria and Special Studies Office; EPA report no. EPA-
600/8-77-017. Available from: NTIS, Springfield, VA; PB-280411.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1986a). Air quality criteria
for lead. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment, Environmental Criteria and Assessment
Office; EPA report no. EPA-600/8-83/028aF-dF. 4v. Available from:
NTIS, Springfield, VA; PB87-142378.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1986b). Lead effects on
cardiovascular function, early development, and stature: an addendum
to U.S. EPA Air Quality Criteria for Lead (1986). In: Air quality
criteria for lead, v. 1. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of
Health and Environmental Assessment, Environmental Criteria and
Assessment Office; pp. A1-A67; EPA report no. EPA-600/8-83/028aF.
Available from: NTIS, Springfield, VA; PB87-142378.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1989). Review of the national
ambient air quality standards for lead: Exposure analysis
methodology and validation: OAQPS staff report. Research Triangle
Park, NC: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; report no.
EPA-450/2-89/011. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/data/rnaaqsl_eamv.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1990a). Air quality criteria
for lead: supplement to the 1986 addendum. Research Triangle Park,
NC: Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Environmental
Criteria and Assessment Office; report no. EPA/600/8-89/049F.
Available from: NTIS, Springfield, VA; PB91-138420.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1990b). Review of the
national ambient air quality standards for lead: assessment of
scientific and technical information: OAQPS staff paper. Research
Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards;
report no. EPA-450/2-89/022. Available from: NTIS, Springfield, VA;
PB91-206185. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/data/rnaaqsl_asti.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1991). U.S. EPA Strategy for
Reducing Lead Exposure. Available from U.S. EPA Headquarters
Library/Washington, DC (Library Code EJBD; Item Call Number: EAP
100/1991.6; OCLC Number 2346675). http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/s_pb_pr.html.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005a). Project Work Plan for
Revised Air Quality Criteria for Lead. CASAC Review Draft. National
Center for Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC.
NCEA-R-1465. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/s_pb_cr_pd.html.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005b). Ecological Soil
Screening Levels for Lead, Interim Final. Washington, DC: Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response. OSWER Directive 9285.7-70.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/ecossl/pdf/eco-ssl_lead.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006a). Air Quality Criteria
for Lead. Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-5/144aF. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/s_pb_cr.html.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006b). Plan for Review of
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/s_pb_cr_pd.html.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006c). Analysis Plan for
Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for the Review of the
Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/s_pb_cr_pd.html.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2007a). Lead: Human Exposure
and Health Risk Assessments for Selected Case Studies, Volume I.
Human Exposure and Health Risk Assessments--Full-Scale and Volume
II. Appendices.

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park, NC. EPA-452/R-07-014a and EPA-452/R-07-014b.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2007b). Review of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead: Policy Assessment
of Scientific and Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.
EPA-452/R-07-013. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/s_pb_cr_sp.html.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011a). Integrated Review
Plan for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead.
Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-452/R-11-008. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/s_pb_index.html.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011b). Review of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead: Risk and Exposure
Assessment Planning Document. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA/452/P-11-003. Available
at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/s_pb_2010_pd.html.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011c). Partnership for Clean
Fuels and Vehicles: Evaluation of the Design and Implementation of
the Lead Campaign. Final Report. Document number EPA-100-R-11-008.
Office of Policy, Washington, DC. December 2011.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011d). Integrated Review
Plan for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead.
External Review Draft. Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-452/D-11-001.
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/s_pb_index.html.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011e). Integrated Science
Assessment for Lead (First External Review Draft). Washington, DC,
EPA/600/R-10/075A. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/s_pb_index.html.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012a). Integrated Science
Assessment for Lead (Second External Review Draft). Washington, DC,
EPA/600/R-10/075B. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/s_pb_index.html.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012b). Integrated Science
Assessment for Lead (Third External Review Draft). Washington, DC,
EPA/600/R-10/075C. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/s_pb_2010_isa.html.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2013a). Integrated Science
Assessment for Lead. Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-10/075F. Available
at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/s_pb_2010_isa.html.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2013b). Policy Assessment for
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead. External Review
Draft. Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-452/P-13-001. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/s_pb_2010_pa.html.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2014). Policy Assessment for
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead. Research
Triangle Park, NC. EPA-452/R-14-001. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/s_pb_2010_pa.html.
Xie, X.; Ding, G.; Cui, C.; Chen, L.; Gao, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Shi, R.;
Tian, Y. (2013). The effects of low-level prenatal lead exposure on
birth outcomes. Environ Pollution 175:30-34.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 50

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: September 16, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-23153 Filed 10-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 201 (Monday, October 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63231-63232]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26438]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-D-0235]

Evaluating the Effectiveness of New Animal Drugs for the
Reduction of Pathogenic Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli in
Cattle; Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a guidance for industry #229 entitled ``Evaluating the
Effectiveness of New Animal Drugs for the Reduction of Pathogenic Shiga
Toxin-Producing E. coli in Cattle.'' The purpose of this document is to
provide recommendations to industry relating to study design and
describe criteria the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) thinks are
the most appropriate for the evaluation of the effectiveness of new
animal drugs that are intended to reduce pathogenic Shiga toxin-
producing E. coli (STEC) in cattle.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances
at any time.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.

     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2015-D-0235 for ``Evaluating the Effectiveness of New Animal Drugs
for the Reduction of Pathogenic Shiga Toxin-Producing E. coli in
Cattle; Guidance for Industry; Availability.'' Received comments will
be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as
``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION''. The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the
Policy and Regulations Staff (HFV-6), Center for Veterinary Medicine,
Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855.
Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in
processing your request. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
electronic access to the guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua R. Hayes, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-133), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of February 24, 2015 (80 FR 9731), FDA
published a notice of availability for a draft guidance entitled
``Evaluating the Effectiveness of New Animal Drugs for the Reduction of
Pathogenic Shiga Toxin-Producing E. coli in Cattle'' giving interested
persons until April 27, 2015, to comment on the draft guidance. FDA
received one comment on the draft guidance. An editorial change to
improve clarity was made in finalizing this guidance document. The
guidance announced in this notice finalizes the guidance dated February
2015.
    The guidance discusses general considerations regarding the
development of protocols, study conduct, animal welfare, substantial
evidence of effectiveness, experimental parameters, nutritional content
of experimental diets, and the assessment of drug concentrations in
experimental diets. It also discusses the studies and analyses CVM
recommends for sponsors to substantiate the effectiveness of pathogenic
STEC reduction drugs.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This level 1 guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents
the current thinking of FDA on ``Evaluating the Effectiveness of New
Animal Drugs for the Reduction of Pathogenic Shiga Toxin-Producing E.
coli in Cattle.'' It does not establish any rights for any person and
is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative
approach if it satisfies the requirements of applicable statutes and
regulations.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in 21 CFR part 514 have been approved under
OMB control number 0910-0032.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance
at either http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: October 13, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-26438 Filed 10-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 27 (Friday, February 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9433-9434]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02853]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[OMB Control No. 3235-0120, SEC File No. 270-108]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Form 18-K.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget this

request for extension of the previously approved collection of
information discussed below.
    Form 18-K (17 CFR 249.318) is an annual report form used by foreign
governments or political subdivisions of foreign governments with
securities listed on a United States exchange. The information to be
collected is intended to ensure the adequacy of information available
to investors in the registration of securities and assures public
availability. The information provided is mandatory. Form 18-K is a
public document. We estimate that Form 18-K takes approximately 8 hours
to prepare and is filed by approximately 40 respondents for a total
annual reporting burden of 320 hours.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon,
6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of
this notice.

    Dated: February 4, 2013.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-02853 Filed 2-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 84 (Monday, May 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 25632]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09346]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1353-013.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: 20220425 Form 2 Calculated Factor
and Maintenance Capital Spending Report to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 4/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220425-5370.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/9/22.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-837-000.
    Applicants: Northern Border Pipeline Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2022 Operational Purchases and
Sales Report to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 4/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220425-5335.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/9/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-838-000.
    Applicants: Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2022 Operational Purchases and
Sales Report to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 4/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220425-5377.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/9/22.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 26, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-09346 Filed 4-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 121 (Monday, June 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34111-34114]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13633]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-1998-4334; FMCSA-2000-7918; FMCSA-2003-14504; FMCSA-
2003-15268; FMCSA-2004-17984; FMCSA-2004-18885; FMCSA-2005-20027;
FMCSA-2005-21254; FMCSA-2006-26066; FMCSA-2006-26653; FMCSA-2008-0106;
FMCSA-2008-0340; FMCSA-2009-0086; FMCSA-2010-0385; FMCSA-2011-0010;
FMCSA-2011-0102; FMCSA-2012-0279; FMCSA-2012-0337; FMCSA-2013-0022;
FMCSA-2013-0027; FMCSA-2013-0028; FMCSA-2013-0029; FMCSA-2013-0169;
FMCSA-2014-0004; FMCSA-2014-0006; FMCSA-2014-0008; FMCSA-2014-0298;
FMCSA-2014-0300; FMCSA-2014-0301; FMCSA-2014-0304; FMCSA-2014-0305;
FMCSA-2015-0055; FMCSA-2015-0350; FMCSA-2016-0024; FMCSA-2016-0213;
FMCSA-2016-0377; FMCSA-2017-0014; FMCSA-2017-0019; FMCSA-2018-0018;
FMCSA-2018-0208; FMCSA-2018-0209; FMCSA-2019-0004; FMCSA-2019-0005;
FMCSA-2019-0011]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 59
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
requirements in one eye.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions were 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 July 28,
2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-1998-4334, Docket No. FMCSA-
2000-7918, Docket No. FMCSA-2003-14504, Docket No. FMCSA-2003-15268,
Docket No. FMCSA-2004-17984, Docket No. FMCSA-2004-18885, Docket No.
FMCSA-2005-20027, Docket No. FMCSA-2005-21254, Docket No. FMCSA-2006-
26066, Docket No. FMCSA-2006-26653, Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0106, Docket
No. FMCSA-2008-0340, Docket No. FMCSA-2009-0086, Docket No. FMCSA-2010-
0385, Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0010, Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0102, Docket
No. FMCSA-2012-0279, Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0337, Docket No. FMCSA-2013-
0022, Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0027, Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0028, Docket
No. FMCSA-2013-0029, Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0169, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-
0004, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0006, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0008, Docket
No. FMCSA-2014-0298, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0300, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-
0301, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0304, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0305, Docket
No. FMCSA-2015-0055, Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0350, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-
0024, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0213, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0377, Docket
No. FMCSA-2017-0014, Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0019, Docket No. FMCSA-2018-
0018, Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0208, Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0209, Docket
No. FMCSA-2019-0004, Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0005, or Docket No. FMCSA-
2019-0011 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov/,
insert the docket number, FMCSA-1998-4334, FMCSA-2000-7918, FMCSA-2003-
14504, FMCSA-2003-15268, FMCSA-2004-17984, FMCSA-2004-18885, FMCSA-
2005-20027, FMCSA-2005-21254, FMCSA-2006-26066, FMCSA-2006-26653,
FMCSA-2008-0106, FMCSA-2008-0340, FMCSA-2009-0086, FMCSA-2010-0385,
FMCSA-2011-0010, FMCSA-2011-0102, FMCSA-2012-0279, FMCSA-2012-0337,
FMCSA-2013-0022, FMCSA-2013-0027, FMCSA-2013-0028, FMCSA-2013-0029,
FMCSA-2013-0169, FMCSA-2014-0004, FMCSA-2014-0006, FMCSA-2014-0008,
FMCSA-2014-0298, FMCSA-2014-0300, FMCSA-2014-0301, FMCSA-2014-0304,
FMCSA-2014-0305, FMCSA-2015-0055, FMCSA-2015-0350, FMCSA-2016-0024,
FMCSA-2016-0213, FMCSA-2016-0377, FMCSA-2017-0014, FMCSA-2017-0019,
FMCSA-2018-0018, FMCSA-2018-0208, FMCSA-2018-0209, FMCSA-2019-0004,
FMCSA-2019-0005, or FMCSA-2019-0011 in the keyword box, and click
``Search.'' Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose
the first notice listed, and click on the ``Comment'' button. Follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Dockets Operations; 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.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (Docket No. FMCSA-1998-4334; FMCSA-2000-7918; FMCSA-2003-14504;
FMCSA-2003-15268; FMCSA-2004-17984; FMCSA-2004-18885; FMCSA-2005-20027;
FMCSA-2005-21254; FMCSA-2006-26066; FMCSA-2006-26653; FMCSA-2008-0106;
FMCSA-2008-0340; FMCSA-2009-0086; FMCSA-2010-0385; FMCSA-2011-0010;
FMCSA-2011-0102; FMCSA-2012-0279; FMCSA-2012-0337; FMCSA-2013-0022;
FMCSA-2013-0027; FMCSA-2013-0028; FMCSA-2013-0029; FMCSA-2013-0169;
FMCSA-2014-0004; FMCSA-2014-0006; FMCSA-2014-0008; FMCSA-2014-0298;
FMCSA-2014-0300; FMCSA-2014-0301; FMCSA-2014-0304; FMCSA-2014-0305;
FMCSA-2015-0055; FMCSA-2015-0350; FMCSA-2016-0024; FMCSA-2016-0213;
FMCSA-2016-0377; FMCSA-2017-0014; FMCSA-2017-0019; FMCSA-2018-0018;
FMCSA-2018-0208; FMCSA-2018-0209; FMCSA-2019-0004; FMCSA-2019-0005;
FMCSA-2019-0011), indicate the specific section of this document to
which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means.
FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an
email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that
FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to www.regulations.gov/, insert
the docket number, FMCSA-1998-4334, FMCSA-2000-7918, FMCSA-2003-14504,
FMCSA-2003-15268, FMCSA-2004-17984, FMCSA-2004-18885, FMCSA-2005-20027,
FMCSA-2005-21254, FMCSA-2006-26066, FMCSA-2006-26653, FMCSA-2008-0106,
FMCSA-2008-0340, FMCSA-2009-0086, FMCSA-2010-0385, FMCSA-2011-0010,
FMCSA-2011-0102, FMCSA-2012-0279, FMCSA-2012-0337, FMCSA-2013-0022,
FMCSA-2013-0027, FMCSA-2013-0028, FMCSA-2013-0029, FMCSA-2013-0169,
FMCSA-2014-0004, FMCSA-2014-0006, FMCSA-2014-0008, FMCSA-2014-0298,
FMCSA-2014-0300, FMCSA-2014-0301, FMCSA-2014-0304, FMCSA-2014-0305,
FMCSA-2015-0055, FMCSA-2015-0350, FMCSA-2016-0024, FMCSA-2016-0213,
FMCSA-2016-0377, FMCSA-2017-0014, FMCSA-2017-0019, FMCSA-2018-0018,
FMCSA-2018-0208, FMCSA-2018-0209, FMCSA-2019-0004, FMCSA-2019-0005, or
FMCSA-2019-0011 in the keyword box, and click ``Search.'' Next, sort
the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose the first notice
listed, click the ``Comment'' button, and type your comment into the
text box on the following screen. Choose whether you are submitting
your comment as an individual or on behalf of a third party and then
submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

B. Viewing Comments

    To view comments go to www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket
number, FMCSA-1998-4334, FMCSA-2000-7918, FMCSA-2003-14504, FMCSA-2003-
15268, FMCSA-2004-17984, FMCSA-2004-18885, FMCSA-2005-20027, FMCSA-
2005-21254, FMCSA-2006-26066, FMCSA-2006-26653, FMCSA-2008-0106, FMCSA-
2008-0340, FMCSA-2009-0086, FMCSA-2010-0385, FMCSA-2011-0010, FMCSA-
2011-0102, FMCSA-2012-0279, FMCSA-2012-0337, FMCSA-2013-0022, FMCSA-
2013-0027, FMCSA-2013-0028, FMCSA-2013-0029, FMCSA-2013-0169, FMCSA-
2014-0004, FMCSA-2014-0006, FMCSA-2014-0008, FMCSA-2014-0298, FMCSA-
2014-0300, FMCSA-2014-0301, FMCSA-2014-0304, FMCSA-2014-0305, FMCSA-
2015-0055, FMCSA-2015-0350, FMCSA-2016-0024, FMCSA-2016-0213, FMCSA-
2016-0377, FMCSA-2017-0014, FMCSA-2017-0019, FMCSA-2018-0018, FMCSA-
2018-0208, FMCSA-2018-0209, FMCSA-2019-0004, FMCSA-2019-0005, FMCSA-
2019-0011 in the keyword box, and click ``Search.'' Next, sort the
results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose the first notice listed,
and click ``Browse Comments.'' If you do not have access to the
internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations
in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone
is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>
before visiting Dockets Operations.

C. 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 www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-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 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive 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 59 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of
their exemptions from the vision standard in Sec.  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 2-year period.

III. 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(b), FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

IV. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each of the 59
applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an
exemption from the vision standard (see 63 FR 66226, 64 FR 16517, 65 FR
66286, 66 FR 13825, 66 FR 17994, 68 FR 13360, 68 FR 15037, 68 FR 19598,
68 FR 33570, 68 FR 37197, 68 FR 48989, 69 FR 33997, 69 FR 53493, 69 FR
61292, 69 FR 62742, 70 FR 2701, 70 FR 12265, 70 FR 14747, 70 FR 16887,
70 FR 25878, 70 FR 30999, 70 FR 42615, 70 FR 46567, 71 FR 62148, 71 FR
63379, 72 FR 184, 72 FR 1051, 72 FR 8417, 72 FR 11425, 72 FR 11426, 72
FR 12665, 72 FR 28093, 72 FR 36099, 72 FR 40359, 72 FR 40360, 73 FR
35197, 73 FR 48275, 73 FR 61925, 73 FR 75803, 73 FR 78423, 74 FR 6209,
74 FR 8302, 74 FR 9329, 74 FR 11991, 74 FR 15586, 74 FR 19267, 74 FR
20253, 74 FR 26466, 74 FR 28094, 74 FR 34074, 74 FR 34632, 75 FR 44051,
75 FR 77492, 75 FR 77942, 75 FR 77949, 75 FR 79083, 76 FR 4413, 76 FR
5425, 76 FR 9856, 76 FR 11215, 76 FR 15360, 76 FR 17483, 76 FR 20076,
76 FR 21796, 76 FR 29022, 76 FR 29026, 76 FR 32016, 76 FR 37173, 76 FR
44082, 76 FR 44653, 76 FR 49531, 77 FR 46153, 77 FR 60008, 77 FR 68202,
77 FR 70534, 77 FR 71671, 77 FR 74734, 78 FR 797, 78 FR 800, 78 FR
9772, 78 FR 12815, 78 FR 12822, 78 FR 16035, 78 FR 16762, 78 FR 18667,
78 FR 22596, 78 FR 22602, 78 FR 24798, 78 FR 27281, 78 FR 30954, 78 FR
32703, 78 FR 34143, 78 FR 41188, 78 FR 46407, 78 FR 51268, 78 FR 52602,
78 FR 57679, 78 FR 64274, 78 FR 77778, 79 FR 4531, 79 FR 18392, 79 FR
29498, 79 FR 35212, 79 FR 41737, 79 FR 46153, 79 FR 47175, 79 FR 56102,
79 FR 65759, 79 FR 65760, 79 FR 69985, 79 FR 73686, 80 FR 603, 80 FR
2473, 80 FR 3305, 80 FR 3308, 80 FR 6162, 80 FR 8927, 80 FR 13070, 80
FR 14220, 80 FR 14223, 80 FR 15859, 80 FR 15863, 80 FR 16500, 80 FR
16502, 80 FR 18693, 80 FR 20562, 80 FR 22773, 80 FR 25766, 80 FR 25768,
80 FR 31957, 80 FR 33007, 80 FR 33011, 80 FR 36395, 80 FR 36398, 80 FR
41547, 80 FR 44185, 80 FR 44188, 80 FR 45573, 80 FR 62161, 80 FR 67481,
81 FR 14190, 81 FR 21655, 81 FR 39100, 81 FR 66718, 81 FR 80161, 81 FR
81230, 81 FR 90050, 81 FR 96165, 81 FR 96180, 82 FR 13043, 82 FR 13045,
82 FR 13048, 82 FR 13187, 82 FR 15277, 82 FR 17736, 82 FR 18949, 82 FR
18956, 82 FR 22379, 82 FR 23712, 82 FR 26224, 82 FR 32919, 82 FR 33542,
82 FR 35043, 82 FR 37499, 82 FR 47295, 83 FR 2306, 83 FR 15195, 83 FR
28325, 83 FR 34661, 83 FR 40638, 83 FR 53727, 83 FR 60954, 84 FR 2305,
84 FR 2311, 84 FR 2314, 84 FR 2323, 84 FR 2326, 84 FR 2328, 84 FR 5550,
84 FR 10389, 84 FR 12665, 84 FR 16320, 84 FR 16327, 84 FR 16336, 84 FR
21393, 84 FR 21397, 84 FR 21401, 84 FR 33801, 84 FR 47045, 84 FR 47057,
84 FR 52166). They have submitted evidence showing that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the requirement specified at Sec.
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 2 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 2 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(b), the following
groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of August
and are discussed below. As of August 8, 2021, and in accordance with
49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following 51 individuals have
satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the
vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (63 FR
66226, 64 FR 16517, 65 FR 66286, 66 FR 13825, 66 FR 17994, 68 FR 13360,
68 FR 15037, 68 FR 19598, 68 FR 33570, 69 FR 33997, 69 FR 53493, 69 FR
61292, 69 FR 62742, 70 FR 2701, 70 FR 12265, 70 FR 14747, 70 FR 16887,
70 FR 25878, 71 FR 62148, 71 FR 63379, 72 FR 184, 72 FR 1051, 72 FR
8417, 72 FR 11425, 72 FR 11426, 72 FR 12665, 72 FR 28093, 72 FR 36099,
73 FR 35197, 73 FR 48275, 73 FR 61925, 73 FR 75803, 73 FR 78423, 74 FR
6209, 74 FR 8302, 74 FR 9329, 74 FR 11991, 74 FR 15586, 74 FR 19267, 74
FR 20253, 74 FR 26466, 74 FR 28094, 75 FR 44051, 75 FR 77492, 75 FR
77942, 75 FR 77949, 75 FR 79083, 76 FR 4413, 76 FR 5425, 76 FR 9856, 76
FR 11215, 76 FR 15360, 76 FR 17483, 76 FR 20076, 76 FR 21796, 76 FR
29022, 76 FR 29026, 76 FR 32016, 76 FR 37173, 76 FR 44082, 77 FR 46153,
77 FR 60008, 77 FR 68202, 77 FR 70534, 77 FR 71671, 77 FR 74734, 78 FR
797, 78 FR 800, 78 FR 9772, 78 FR 12815, 78 FR 12822, 78 FR 16035, 78
FR 16762, 78 FR 18667, 78 FR 22596, 78 FR 22602, 78 FR 24798, 78 FR
27281, 78 FR 30954, 78 FR 32703, 78 FR 41188, 78 FR 46407, 78 FR 51268,
78 FR 57679, 78 FR 64274, 78 FR 77778, 79 FR 18392, 79 FR 29498, 79 FR
35212, 79 FR 41737, 79 FR 46153, 79 FR 47175, 79 FR 56102, 79 FR 65759,
79 FR 65760, 79 FR 69985, 79 FR 73686, 80 FR 603, 80 FR 2473, 80 FR
3305, 80 FR 3308, 80 FR 6162, 80 FR 8927, 80 FR 13070, 80 FR 14220, 80
FR 14223, 80 FR 15859, 80 FR 15863, 80 FR 16500, 80 FR 16502, 80 FR
18693, 80 FR 20562, 80 FR 22773, 80 FR 25766, 80 FR 25768, 80 FR 31957,
80 FR 33007, 80 FR 33011, 80 FR 36395, 80 FR 36398, 80 FR 45573, 80 FR
67481, 81 FR 14190, 81 FR 21655, 81 FR 39100, 81 FR 66718, 81 FR 80161,
81 FR 81230, 81 FR 90050, 81 FR 96165, 81 FR 96180, 82 FR 13043, 82 FR
13045, 82 FR 13048, 82 FR 13187, 82 FR 15277, 82 FR 17736, 82 FR 18949,
82 FR 18956, 82 FR 22379, 82 FR 23712, 82 FR 26224, 82 FR 32919, 82 FR
33542, 82 FR 37499, 83 FR 2306, 83 FR 15195, 83 FR 28325, 83 FR 34661,
83 FR 40638, 83 FR 53727, 83 FR 60954, 84 FR 2305, 84 FR 2311, 84 FR
2314, 84 FR 2323, 84 FR 2326, 84 FR 2328, 84 FR 5550, 84 FR 10389, 84
FR 12665, 84 FR 16320, 84 FR 16327, 84 FR 16336, 84 FR 21393, 84 FR
21397, 84 FR 21401, 84 FR 47057, 84 FR 52166):

Marvin D. Bass (KY)
Raymond L. Bradshaw (TX)
Joel A. Cabrera (FL)
Richard D. Carlson (MN)
David F. Cialdea (MA)
Peter R. Clarke (WA)
Marcus L. Conner (TX)
Jon R. Davidson (CO)
Donald W. Donaldson (GA)
David L. Dykman (ID)
Terry J. Edwards (MO)
Barry J. Ferdinando (NH)
Riche Ford (CO)
Dale R. Goodell (SD)
Thomas A. Grigsby (AR)

Matthew J. Hahn (PA)
Jay A. Harding (OR)
Johnny K. Hiatt (NC)
William G. Holland (AR)
Abdalla M. Jalili (IL)
Francisco J. Jimenez (TX)
Curtis L. Lamb (KS)
David C. Leoffler (CO)
Richard D. Livingston (WI)
Robert R. Martin (VA)
Carl M. McIntire (OH)
Edgar H. Meraz Gardea (NM)
Leonard Morris (NJ)
Timothy L. Morton (NC)
George M. Nelson (OH)
William L. Paschall (MD)
John P. Perez (FL)
Zeljko Popovac (VT)
Roberto A. Ramos (TX)
Donald W. Randall (OR)
Larry F. Reber (OH)
Larry D. Robinson (MO)
Cory W. Schell (WA)
Lynn R. Schraeder (IA)
Leverne F. Schulte, Jr. (OH)
Richie J. Schwendy (IL)
Martin Serrano (IL)
Kyle C. Shover (NJ)
Sammie Q. Soles, Jr. (MI)
Charles T. Spears (VA)
George R. Tieskoetter (IA)
Jaime Valdez (TX)
James K. Waites (AR)
Robert A. Wegner (MN)
Bryon L. Wright (DE)
Dana J. York (PA)

    The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-1998-4334, FMCSA-
2000-7918, FMCSA-2003-14504, FMCSA-2004-17984, FMCSA-2004-18885, FMCSA-
2005-20027, FMCSA-2006-26066, FMCSA-2006-26653, FMCSA-2008-0106, FMCSA-
2008-0340, FMCSA-2009-0086, FMCSA-2010-0385, FMCSA-2011-0010, FMCSA-
2011-0102, FMCSA-2012-0279, FMCSA-2012-0337, FMCSA-2013-0022, FMCSA-
2013-0027, FMCSA-2013-0028, FMCSA-2013-0169, FMCSA-2014-0004, FMCSA-
2014-0006, FMCSA-2014-0008, FMCSA-2014-0298, FMCSA-2014-0300, FMCSA-
2014-0301, FMCSA-2014-0304, FMCSA-2014-0305, FMCSA-2015-0350, FMCSA-
2016-0024, FMCSA-2016-0213, FMCSA-2016-0377, FMCSA-2017-0014, FMCSA-
2018-0018, FMCSA-2018-0208, FMCSA-2018-0209, FMCSA-2019-0004, and
FMCSA-2019-0005. Their exemptions are applicable as of August 8, 2021
and will expire on August 8, 2023.
    As of August 10, 2021, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315(b), the following individual has satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (70 FR 30999, 70 FR 46567, 72 FR
40359, 74 FR 34074, 76 FR 44653, 79 FR 4531, 80 FR 41547, 82 FR 32919,
84 FR 52166):

Carl V. Murphy, Jr. (TX)

    The driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2005-21254. The
exemption is applicable as of August 10, 2021 and will expire on August
10, 2023.
    As of August 15, 2021, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315(b), the following three individuals have satisfied the
renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision
requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (68 FR 37197, 68
FR 48989, 70 FR 42615, 72 FR 40360, 74 FR 34632, 76 FR 49531, 79 FR
4531, 80 FR 44185, 82 FR 32919, 84 FR 33801, 84 FR 47045, 84 FR 52166):

Christopher G. Jarvela (MI)
Guillermo Rocha (CA)
Paul S. Yocum (IN)

    The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2003-15268 and
FMCSA-2019-0011. Their exemptions are applicable as of August 15, 2021
and will expire on August 15, 2023.
    As of August 23, 2021, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315(b), the following individual has satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (78 FR 34143, 78 FR 52602, 82 FR
32919, 84 FR 52166):

Twila G. Cole (OR)

    The driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0029. The
exemption is applicable as of August 23, 2021 and will expire on August
23, 2023.
    As of August 25, 2021, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315(b), the following two individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (80 FR 44188, 80 FR 62161, 82 FR
32919, 84 FR 52166):

Robert J. Falanga (FL)
Duane S. Lozinski (IA)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0055. Their
exemptions are applicable as of August 25, 2021 and will expire on
August 25, 2023.
    As of August 29, 2021, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315(b), the following individual has satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (82 FR 35043, 82 FR 47295, 84 FR
52166):

Patrick J. Conner (OK)

    The driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2017-0019. The
exemption is applicable as of August 29, 2021 and will expire on August
29, 2023.

V. 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 vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a certified medical examiner (ME), as defined by Sec.
390.5, who attests that the driver is otherwise physically qualified
under Sec.  391.41; (2) each driver must provide a copy of the
ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the ME 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 or keep a copy of his/her driver's
qualification if he/her is self-employed. The driver must also have a
copy of the exemption when 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(b).

VI. 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 59 exemption applications, FMCSA
renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the vision
requirement in Sec.  391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited
above. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each
exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-13633 Filed 6-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P