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

2Existing 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). 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
23304 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1This 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. 

2See NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 

1998); Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 

25172 (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 (PM2.5), ozone, 

and lead (Pb) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS). The EPA 

revised the 1997 24-hour primary and 

secondary NAAQS for PM2.5 from 65 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) to 

35 mg/m3 (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/m3 to 

0.15 mg/m3 (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 PM2.5, 

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 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS (August 8, 2011, 76 FR 48208). 

The Transport Rule was intended to 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 23305 

3CAIR 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 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

For more information on CAIR, see the July 30, 

2012 proposal for Arizona regarding interstate 

transport for the 2006 PM2.5 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 PM2.5, 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 

PM2.5 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 PM2.5

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 

PM2.5, ozone and PM2.5 precursors in 

Alaska, are located over 1400 miles from 

the nearest nonattainment areas. In 

addition, the State’s submittal pointed 

to aggregate manmade PM2.5 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 PM2.5 emissions in 

the United States. Similarly, precursor 

emissions to PM2.5 (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 PM2.5

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 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
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 PM2.5, 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 PM2.5, 

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 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1