### 23303 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules

2 Existing structures within the OEI surface would be grandfathered and not subject to this proposed policy; however, this proposal would apply to modifications to such structures.

Under this proposed policy, if notice of a proposed structure is filed with the FAA and the structure would exceed an obstruction standard, the structure would be a hazard to air navigation if it exceed the OEI surface for that runway and it was not shielded in accordance with paragraph 6–3–13 of FAA Order 7400.2, 2 Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters. The FAA invites comment on whether additional exceptions are warranted to this finding of a hazard determination for these obstructions.

The FAA believes any airport and experiencing encroachment should work with its users during the Master Planning process and propose to depict a dedicated OEI surface on the Airport Layout Plan (ALP). If this results in a large number of pending proposals, then the FAA will give top priority to those submitted by the core airports. Core airports are those with more than 1% of total enplanements, defined as large hubs, or airports with 0.75% or more of total non-military itinerant operations. These core airports are the most likely to have a near-term need to define OEI departure areas. FAA will then process requests from non-core airports on a first come, first served basis, consistent with available FAA resources. FAA approval of proposed changes to the ALP will require consideration of potential environmental impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As part of the NEPA review, the FAA will identify and appropriately address any disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low income populations in accordance with the Executive Order on Environmental Justice.

The FAA intends to amend agency guidance and directives to encourage airports to collaborate with stakeholders to proactively identify OEI departure tracks and consider potential impacts of land use development upon airport capacity. The FAA is seeking input on the negative or positive impact from all parties that could result from this policy change, including developers, airport owners, aircraft operators, local governments, and any other group that feels they will be impacted. Issued in Washington, DC, on April 21,
2014. Raymond Towles, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regions and Center Operations, Office of Finance and Management, Federal Aviation Administration. [FR Doc. 2014–09337 Filed 4–24–14; 4:15 pm]

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P**

**SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION**

**20 CFR Part 404**

**[Docket No. SSA–2006–0140]**

**RIN 0960–AF35**

**Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Neurological Disorders** 

**AGENCY :**  Social Security Administration.

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule; notice of teleconference.

**SUMMARY :**  We propose to revise the criteria in the Listing of Impairments (listings) that we use to evaluate disability claims involving neurological disorders in adults and children under titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (Act). The proposed revisions reflect our program experience; advances in medical knowledge, treatment, and methods of evaluating neurological disorders; comments we received from medical experts and the public at an outreach policy conference; and responses to an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). On Monday, May 12, 2014 at 1:00 p.m., EDT, we will conduct an informational teleconference on certain proposed changes to the medical criteria for evaluating neurological disorders in the Listing of Impairments (listings). The teleconference is open to the public and will be strictly informational.

Date and Time: The teleconference will take place on Monday, May 12, 2014 at 1:00 p.m., EDT.

Teleconference: To join us by teleconference, dial phone number 1– 800–930–7709 and use passcode number 112683.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  For additional information about this teleconference, please contact Cheryl Williams, Office of Medical Policy, Office of Disability Policy, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235– 6401, (410) 965–1020.

For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1–800–772–1213, or TTY 1– 800–325–0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at http:// www.socialsecurity.gov. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  On Monday, May 12, 2014 at 1:00 p.m., EDT, we will conduct an informational teleconference on certain proposed changes to the medical criteria for evaluating neurological disorders in the Listing of Impairments (listings), as described in our recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking we published in the Federal Register on February 25, 2014 (79 FR 10636). We use the criteria in the listings to evaluate the effects of neurological disorders in adults and children under titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act.

The teleconference is open to the public and we invite interested individuals to join us.

• To join the teleconference, dial phone number 1–800–930–7709 and use passcode number 112683.

The teleconference will be strictly informational. The public comment period for the notice of proposed rulemaking will be extended through May 28, 2014. The presenter will be Shirleeta Stanton, Deputy Associate Commissioner for Disability Policy. Agenda

1. General background on the disability program.

2. How we revise the listings. 3. Information we considered when we drafted the proposed functional criteria in the listings.

4. Overview of the proposed functional criteria in the listings to evaluate a person’s neurological condition.

We will post a summary of the teleconference in the rulemaking record
at http://www.regulations.gov. Use the Search function of the Web page to find docket number SSA–2006–0140 and look under Supporting & Related Material.

Dated: April 22, 2014. Shirleeta Stanton, Deputy Associate Commissioner, Office of Disability Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014–09480 Filed 4–25–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4191–02–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R10–OAR–2011–0609; FRL–9909–97– OAR]** 

**Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Alaska:**  **Interstate Transport of Pollution**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).


### 23304 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules

1 This proposed action does not address the two elements of the interstate transport SIP provision in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility in another state.

2 See NO X SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998); Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR25172 (May 12, 2005); and Transport Rule or CrossState Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). **ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the State Implementation Plan submittals from Alaska to address the interstate transport provisions of the Clean Air Act in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 fine particulate matter, 2008 ozone, and 2008 lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The Clean Air Act requires that each State Implementation Plan contain adequate provisions prohibiting air emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. The EPA has determined that Alaska’s State Implementation Plan submittals on March 29, 2011, and July 7, 2012, contain adequate provisions to ensure that air emissions in Alaska do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 fine particulate matter, 2008 ozone, and 2008 lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards in any other state.

**DATES :**  Comments must be received on or before May 28, 2014.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– OAR–2011–0609, by any of the following methods:

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.

• Email: R10-Public

_ Comments@
epa.gov.

• Mail: Keith Rose, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT– 107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle WA, 98101.

• Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 10 9th Floor Mailroom, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Keith Rose, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT–107. Such deliveries are only accepted during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2011– 0609. The EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Keith Rose at (206) 553–1949, rose.keith@epa.gov, or the above EPA Region 10 address.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Throughout this document whenever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA. Information is organized as follows:

Table of Contents
I. Background

A. National Ambient Air Quality Standards

and Interstate Transport B. EPA Interstate Transport Regulatory

Actions C. EPA Guidance on Interstate Transport II. State Submittals III. Proposed Action VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background A. National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Interstate Transport

In recent years, the EPA revised the fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ), ozone, and lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The EPA revised the 1997 24-hour primary and secondary NAAQS for PM 2.5 from 65 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m 3 ) to
35 mg/m 3 (71 FR 61144, October 17, 2006). Subsequently, the EPA revised the levels of the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone standards from 0.08 to 0.075 parts per million (73 FR 16436, March 12, 2008). Finally, the EPA revised the level of the primary and secondary Pb NAAQS from 1.5 mg/m 3 to
0.15 mg/m 3 (73 FR 66964, November 12, 2008).

The interstate transport provisions in the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (also called ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions) require each state to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that prohibits emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies four distinct elements related to the impacts of air pollutants transported across state lines. In this action, the EPA is addressing the first two elements of this section, specified at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), 1 for the 2006 PM 2.5 , 2008 ozone, and 2008 Pb NAAQS.

The first element of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that each SIP for a new or revised NAAQS contain adequate measures to prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants that will ‘‘contribute significantly to nonattainment’’ of the NAAQS in another state. The second element of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that each SIP prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in the state from emitting pollutants that will ‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ of the applicable NAAQS in any other state. B. EPA Interstate Transport Regulatory Actions

The EPA has addressed the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in past regulatory actions. 2 The EPA published the final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (Transport Rule) to address the first two elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the eastern portion of the United States with respect to the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS, the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (August 8, 2011, 76 FR 48208). The Transport Rule was intended to


### 23305 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules

3 CAIR addressed the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. It did not address the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. For more information on CAIR, see the July 30, 2012 proposal for Arizona regarding interstate transport for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS (77 FR 44551, 44552).

4 In accordance with the D.C. Circuit decision in EME Homer City, the EPA at this time is not treating the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submissions from Alaska for the 2006 PM 2.5 , 2008 ozone and 2008 Pb NAAQS as required SIP submissions. See EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F .3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. granted, 2013 U.S. Lexis 4801 (2013). Regardless of whether a particular SIP submission is considered ‘‘required,’’ section 110(k)(2) of the CAA requires EPA to act on the submission. Therefore, EPA is proposing to act on the portion of Alaska’s SIP submissions that address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). replace the earlier Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) which was judicially remanded. 3 See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 21, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a decision vacating the Transport Rule. See EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. E.P.A., 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The court also ordered the EPA to continue implementing CAIR in the interim. The United States Supreme Court granted the petitions of the United States and others and agreed to review the D.C. Circuit decision. Oral argument before the Supreme Court was held on December 10, 2013. Unless the EME Homer City decision is reversed or otherwise modified by the Supreme Court, the EPA intends to act in accordance with the D.C. Circuit opinion in EME Homer City. 4 The State of Alaska was not covered by either CAIR or the Transport Rule, and the EPA made no determinations in either rule regarding whether emissions from sources in Alaska significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in another state. Thus, although the D.C. Circuit decision affects whether or not the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP is considered a required SIP submission, the decision has no direct impact on EPA’s evaluation of Alaska’s SIP submission.

C. EPA Guidance on Interstate Transport

The EPA has issued two guidance documents relevant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). On September 25, 2009, the EPA issued the ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5 ) NAAQS.’’ On October 14, 2011, the EPA issued the ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) NAAQS.’’ The EPA has not to date issued guidance related to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As discussed below, Alaska’s analyses of its SIP with respect to the statutory requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) are consistent with the EPA’s September 25, 2009, and October 14, 2011, guidance. The discussion below describes how Alaska’s submittals have addressed CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

II. State Submittals

On March 29, 2011, the State submitted a SIP to address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The State addressed CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) by providing information supporting the conclusion that emissions from Alaska do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in another state. The State’s submittal noted that Alaska’s southern-most border is separated from the nearest nonattainment areas in the State of Washington by over 600 miles. Specifically, the nearest 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment area is located in Tacoma (Pierce County), Washington, and the nearest 2008 ozone nonattainment area is located in Chico (Butte County), California. The Yukon Territory and the Province of British Columbia, Canada, are located between these nonattainment areas and the border of Alaska. The State’s submittal also stated that the Municipality of Anchorage and the Fairbanks North Star Borough, which have the highest emissions of PM 2.5 , ozone and PM 2.5 precursors in Alaska, are located over 1400 miles from the nearest nonattainment areas. In addition, the State’s submittal pointed to aggregate manmade PM 2.5 and ozone precursor levels that are minimal relative to national levels. A state-wide emissions inventory showed that facilities in Alaska make up only 0.1 percent of the total PM 2.5 emissions in the United States. Similarly, precursor emissions to PM 2.5 (e.g., sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides) and precursor emissions to ozone (e.g., volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides) from facilities in Alaska make up less than 0.2 percent of United States’ emissions for those pollutants. The State’s submittal also stated that in Alaska, the regional, predominant low pressure wind patterns emanate from the Gulf of Alaska in the west and travel inland towards the east, circulating in a counterclockwise direction. These predominant low pressure wind patterns would not generally be expected to transport air pollutants from Alaska south to the States of Washington or California. The State’s submittal concluded that emissions from Alaska do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 and 2008 ozone NAAQS in another state.

On July 7, 2012, the State submitted a SIP to address the 2008 Pb NAAQS (Pb Interstate Transport SIP). The State’s Pb Interstate Transport SIP specifically addressed CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and stated that there are no designated Pb nonattainment areas in Alaska or the Pacific Northwest (Washington, Oregon, and Idaho). Potential sources of atmospheric Pb in Alaska are due primarily to the burning of aviation gasoline, which contains tetraethyl-lead, in piston-engine aircraft. The State’s submittal referenced Pb monitoring conducted in the State and discussed the large geographic distance of Alaska from neighboring states, and predominant low pressure wind patterns which would not generally be expected to transport pollutants long distances from Alaska to neighboring states. The State concluded that emissions of Pb from Alaska do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 Pb NAAQS in another state.

As stated in the EPA’s October 14, 2011, guidance, the EPA believes that the physical properties of Pb prevent Pb emissions from experiencing the same travel or formation phenomena as PM 2.5 or ozone. More specifically, there is a sharp decrease in Pb concentrations, at least in the coarse fraction, as the distance from a Pb source increases. Accordingly, while it may be possible for a source in a state to emit Pb in a localized area in quantities that may contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state, the EPA anticipates that this would be a rare situation, e.g., where large sources are in close proximity to state boundaries. The EPA’s experience with initial Pb designations suggests that sources that emit less than 0.5 tons per year or that are located more than two miles from a state border generally appear unlikely to contribute significantly to nonattainment in another state. The only source of Pb in Alaska that exceeds an emission rate of 0.5 tons per year is the Red Dog Mine near Kotzebue, which is over 1,000 miles from the border of the nearest
state. III. Proposed Action

Based on the State’s submittals, the EPA concludes the State has sufficiently


### 23306 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules

demonstrated that emissions from Alaska do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 PM 2.5 , 2008 ozone, or 2008 Pb NAAQS in another state. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve the March 29, 2011, and July 7, 2012, submittals from the State of Alaska to address the interstate transport provisions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM 2.5 , 2008 ozone, and 2008 Pb NAAQS. This action is being taken under CAA section
110. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);

• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and • does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: April 10, 2014. Michelle L. Pirzadeh, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2014–09581 Filed 4–25–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration** 

**49 CFR Parts 370, 371, 373, 375, 376, 378, 379, 387, 389, 390, 391, 395, 396,**  **and 398**

**[Docket No. FMCSA–2012–0376]**

**RIN 2126–AB47**

**Electronic Documents and Signatures**

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

**ACTION :**  Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

**SUMMARY :**  FMCSA proposes amendments to its regulations to allow the use of electronic records and signatures to satisfy FMCSA’s regulatory requirements. The amendments would permit the use of electronic methods to sign, certify, generate, exchange or maintain records so long as the documents accurately reflect the information in the record and can be used for their intended purpose. This proposed rule would apply only to those documents that FMCSA’s regulations obligate entities or individuals to retain; it would not apply to forms or other documents that must be submitted directly to FMCSA. This proposed rule responds in part to the President’s January 2011 Regulatory Review and Reform initiative and would implement the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) and the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E–SIGN).

**DATES :**  You may submit comments on or before June 27, 2014. Comments received after this date will be considered to the extent practicable.

**ADDRESSES :**  You may submit comments identified by the docket number FMCSA–2012–0376 using any one of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov.

• Fax: 202–493–2251.

• Mail: Docket Services (M–30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–0001.

• Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202–366–9329.

To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the ‘‘Public Participation and Request for Comments’’ heading under the

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION** section below for instructions on submitting
comments.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  If you have questions on this proposed rule, please call or email Genevieve Sapir, Office of Counsel, FMCSA, telephone: 202–366–7056; email: Genevieve.Sapir@dot.gov. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, please call Barbara Hairston, Docket Services, telephone 202–366–3024.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  The

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION** section of this NPRM is organized as follows.

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose and Summary of the Major

Provisions B. Benefits and Costs II. Public Participation and Request for Comments A. Submitting Comments B. Viewing Comments and Documents C. Privacy Act III. Background IV. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking V. Section-by-Section Analysis

A. Part 370 B. Part 371 C. Part 373 D. Part 375 E. Part 376 F. Part 378 G. Part 379 H. Part 387 I. Part 389 J. Part 390 K. Part 391