[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 180 (Friday, September 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57791-57793]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23735]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65319; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2011-073]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order
Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether to Disapprove Proposed
Rule Change To Adopt Additional Listing Requirements for Reverse
Mergers

September 12, 2011.

I. Introduction

    On May 26, 2011, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to adopt additional listing requirements for a
company that has become public through a combination with a public
shell, whether through a reverse merger, exchange offer, or otherwise
(a ``Reverse Merger''). The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on June 14, 2011.\3\ On July 25, 2011,
the Commission extended the time period in which to either approve the
proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or to
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed
rule change, to September 12, 2011.\4\ The Commission received two
comment letters on the proposal.\5\ This order institutes proceedings
under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act to determine whether to disapprove
the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64633 (June 8,
2011), 76 FR 34781 (``Nasdaq Notice'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64956 (July 25,
2011), 76 FR 45636 (July 29, 2011).
    \5\ See Letter from David Feldman dated August 30, 2011
(``Feldman Letter'') and letter from Richard Rappaport, Chief
Executive Officer, WestPark Capital, Inc. to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Commission dated September 2, 2011 (WestPark Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to adopt additional listing standards for
companies that become public through a Reverse Merger,\6\ to address
significant regulatory concerns, including accounting fraud allegations
that have recently arisen with respect to Reverse Merger companies. In
its filing, Nasdaq noted, among other things, that there have been
widespread allegations of fraudulent behavior by certain Reverse Merger
companies, leading to concerns that their financial statements cannot
be relied upon.\7\ Nasdaq also stated that it was aware of situations
where it appeared that promoters and others intended to manipulate
prices of Reverse Merger companies' securities higher to help meet
Nasdaq's initial listing bid price requirement, and where companies
have gifted stock to artificially satisfy Nasdaq's public holder
listing requirement.\8\ As a result of these concerns, Nasdaq believes
certain ``seasoning'' requirements in connection with the listing of
Reverse Merger companies are appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For purposes of the Nasdaq proposal, Nasdaq would treat as a
Reverse Merger any transaction whereby an operating company becomes
public by combining with a public shell, whether through a reverse
merger, exchange offer, or otherwise. However, a Reverse Merger
would not include the acquisition of an operating company by a
listed company satisfying the requirements of IM-5101-2 (relating to
companies whose business plan is to complete one or more
acquisitions) or a business combination described in Rule 5110(a)
(relating to a listed company that combines with a non-Nasdaq
entity, resulting in a change of control of the company and
potentially allowing the non-Nasdaq entity to obtain a Nasdaq
listing, sometimes called a ``back-door listing''). A reverse merger
would also not include a Substitution Listing Event, as defined in
Rule 5005(a)(39) (proposed to be renumbered as Rule 5005(a)(40)),
such as the formation of a holding company to replace the listed
company or a merger to facilitate a re-incorporation, because in
these cases the operating company is already a listed entity.
    \7\ See Nasdaq Notice.
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, Nasdaq proposes to prohibit a Reverse Merger company
from applying to list until the combined entity has traded in the U.S.
over-the-counter market, on another national securities exchange, or on
a foreign exchange for at least six months following the filing of all
required information about the Reverse Merger transaction, including
audited financial statements, to the Commission.\9\ Further, Nasdaq
proposes to require that the Reverse Merger company maintain a minimum
of a $4 bid price on at least 30 of the 60 trading days immediately
prior to submitting the listing application. Finally, under the
proposed rule, Nasdaq would not approve any Reverse Merger company for
listing unless the company has timely filed its two most recent
financial reports with the Commission if it is a domestic issuer or
comparable information if it is a foreign private issuer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ According to the Nasdaq proposal, the six month period would
not begin to run until the filing of a Form 8-K. A company must file
a Form 8-K within four days of completing a reverse merger. The Form
8-K must contain audited financial statements and information
comparable to the information provided in a Form 10 for the
registration of securities. See Form 8-K Items 2.01, 5.06, and
9.01(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comment Letters

    The Commission received two comment letters on the proposal.\10\
One commenter \11\ objects broadly to the proposed ``seasoning''
requirement,\12\ while the other supports the objectives of the
proposed rule change, but believes it should include a particular
exception.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, note 5, supra.
    \11\ See Feldman Letter.
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ See WestPark Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter expressed the view that the proposal could have a
``chilling effect of discouraging exciting growth companies from
pursuing all available techniques to obtain the benefits of a public
listed stock and greater access to capital.'' \14\ The commenter
further noted, in response to Nasdaq's justifications for the proposed
rule change, that virtually all of the suggestions of wrongdoing
involve Chinese companies that completed reverse mergers, but that a
number of other Chinese companies that completed full traditional
initial public offerings face the very same allegations, so that
focusing on the manner in which these companies went public may not be
appropriate. Rather than imposing a seasoning requirement, the
commenter suggests Nasdaq review regulatory histories and financial
arrangements with promoters, and refrain from listing companies where
the issues are great. In any event, he recommends an exemption from the
seasoning requirement for a company coming to the exchange with a firm
commitment underwritten public offering. In addition, the commenter
expressed concern that the requirement to maintain a $4 trading price
for 30 days prior to the listing application is unfair, and unrealistic
to expect companies to achieve in the over-the-counter markets, and
suggests it be eliminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Feldman Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter expressed support for the proposed rule change's
objective to protect investors from potential accounting fraud,
manipulative trading, abusive practices

or other inappropriate behavior on the part of companies, promoters and
others.\15\ The commenter, however, recommended that, in order to avoid
unnecessary burdens on smaller capitalization issuers, the proposed
rule change be modified to exclude Form 10 share exchange transactions
from the reverse merger definition, or provide an exception for a
reverse merger company listing in connection with a firm commitment
underwritten public offering. This commenter also recommended that
Nasdaq consider requiring companies listing on the exchange to engage a
recognized independent diligence firm to conduct a forensic audit and
issue a forensic diligence report prior to approval of the listing
application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See WestPark Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. NYSE and NYSE Amex Proposals

    On July 22, 2011, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') \16\
and the NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'') \17\ each filed a proposed rule
change to adopt additional listing requirements for a company that has
become public through a Reverse Merger. NYSE and NYSE Amex filed these
proposed rule changes for similar reasons as Nasdaq--to address
significant regulatory concerns, including accounting fraud
allegations, that have recently arisen with respect to Reverse Merger
companies. The NYSE and NYSE Amex proposals, while similar to the
Nasdaq proposal in many respects, contain certain provisions that
materially differ from the Nasdaq proposal. For example, the NYSE and
NYSE Amex proposals would prohibit a Reverse Merger company from
applying to list until it has traded in another market for one year
after the combined entity submits all required information about the
transaction, including audited financial statements, to the Commission.
The NYSE and NYSE Amex proposals also would require the maintenance of
the minimum stock price for listing on an ``absolute and an average
basis for a sustained period'' of time immediately preceding the filing
of the initial listing application and through listing. In addition,
NYSE and NYSE Amex would not approve any Reverse Merger company for
listing unless the company has timely filed with the Commission all
required reports since the consummation of the Reverse Merger,
including at least one annual report containing audited financial
statements for a full fiscal year commencing on a date after the date
of filing of a Form 8-K, or Form 20-F, relating to the Reverse Merger.
Finally, the NYSE and NYSE Amex proposals include an exemption from the
proposed listing requirements for Reverse Merger companies when the
listing is in connection with an initial firm commitment underwritten
public offering where the proceeds will be at least $40 million and the
offering is occurring subsequent to or concurrently with the Reverse
Merger. The comment period for each of the NYSE and NYSE Amex proposals
expired on August 31, 2011, and the Commission currently is reviewing
the comments received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65034 (August 4,
2011), 76 FR 49513 (August 10, 2011) (SR-NYSE-2011-38).
    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65033 (August 4,
2011), 76 FR 49522 (August 10, 2011) (SR-NYSEAmex-2011-55).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Disapprove SR-NASDAQ-2011-073
and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act to determine whether the proposed rule change
should be disapproved. Institution of such proceedings is appropriate
at this time in view of the legal and policy issues raised by the
proposal that are discussed below. Institution of disapproval
proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has reached any
conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, as
described in greater detail below, the Commission seeks and encourages
interested persons to provide additional comment on the proposed rule
change.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B), the Commission is providing notice
of the grounds for disapproval under consideration. In particular,
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \18\ requires that the rules of an exchange
be designed, among other things, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq's proposal would require Reverse Merger companies to meet
certain ``seasoning'' requirements prior to listing, and is designed to
address significant regulatory concerns, including accounting fraud
allegations, that have recently arisen with respect to Reverse Merger
companies. As noted above, NYSE and NYSE Amex subsequently filed
proposed rule changes designed to address the same concerns as the
Nasdaq proposal. Although similar to the Nasdaq proposal in many
respects, certain provisions of the NYSE and NYSE Amex proposals
materially differ from the Nasdaq proposal, including a one-year
instead of a six-month seasoning period, and a more general requirement
to maintain the minimum listing price for a ``sustained period,''
rather than on at least 30 of the 60 trading days prior to filing the
listing application. Unlike the Nasdaq proposal, the NYSE and NYSE Amex
proposals also include an exemption for Reverse Merger companies that
list in connection with certain underwritten public offerings.
    The Commission shares the concerns of Nasdaq, as well as NYSE and
NYSE Amex, with respect to fraud and manipulation in connection with
the formation of Reverse Merger companies and their listing on an
exchange. The Commission also believes that meaningful enhancements to
exchange listing standards, including more rigorous seasoning
requirements that are appropriately targeted at Reverse Merger
companies could help prevent fraud and manipulation in this area, and
protect investors and the public interest. Because of the importance of
this issue, however, the Commission believes the Nasdaq proposal should
be considered together with the NYSE and NYSE Amex proposals, to assure
that the exchanges develop and implement consistent and effective
enhancements to their listing standards, to best address the serious
concerns that have arisen with respect to the listing of Reverse Merger
companies. Accordingly, in light of the material differences between
the Nasdaq proposal and the NYSE and NYSE Amex proposals, and the
concerns raised by commenters, the Commission believes that questions
are raised as to whether Nasdaq's proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, including whether the
proposed listing requirements would prevent fraud and manipulation,
promote just and equitable principles of trade, or protect investors
and the public interest.

VI. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data and arguments with respect to the
concerns identified above, as well as any others they may have with the
proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of
interested persons concerning whether the proposed rule change is
inconsistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or
the rules and regulation thereunder.

Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or
disapproval which would be facilitated by an oral presentation of
views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to
Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral
presentation.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Section 19(b) (2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities
Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975), grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-regulatory
organization. See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm. on
Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st
Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change should be
disapproved by October 17, 2011. Any person who wishes to file a
rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by
October 26, 2011.
    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2011-073 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2011-073. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NASDAQ-2011-073 and should be submitted on or before October 17, 2011.
Rebuttal comments should be submitted by October 26, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-23735 Filed 9-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 125 (Friday, June 28, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31071-31072]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13799]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2019-N-2452]

Endpoints for Drug Development in Heart Failure; Public Workshop

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public workshop.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is
announcing a public workshop entitled ``Endpoints for Drug Development
in Heart Failure.'' The purpose of this public meeting is to bring the
stakeholder community together to discuss clinical endpoints for trials
in heart failure that could be used to support FDA approval of drugs.
The workshop will focus on endpoints related to symptoms and physical
function. In addition, there will be discussion of the need to assess
mortality effects of drugs under development for heart failure.

DATES: The public workshop will be held on Friday, July 26, 2019, from
9 a.m. to 4 p.m. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
registration date and information.

ADDRESSES: The public workshop will be held at the FDA White Oak
Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 1503 (the Great Room),
Silver Spring, MD 20993. Entrance for the public workshop participants
(non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where routine security check
procedures will be performed. For parking and security information,
please refer to https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/WhiteOakCampusInformation/ucm241740.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Meg Pease-Fye, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 4115, Silver Spring, MD, 20993-0002, 301-
796-1130<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing a public workshop regarding clinical endpoints
for trials in heart failure that could be used to support FDA approval
of drugs. FDA is convening this public workshop to discuss the Agency's
current thinking with expert stakeholders and to consider public
comments.

II. Topics for Discussion at the Public Workshop

    FDA is interested in soliciting feedback on a number of topics:
    1. Consider and discuss endpoints related to symptoms and physical
function, e.g., patient-reported outcome instruments, exercise tests,
data from electronic monitors;
    2. Consider the best ways to count multiple hospitalizations;
    3. Discuss when the nature and clinical importance of a treatment
effect for a particular endpoint may justify deferral or omission of
outcomes studies;
    4. In setting an upper bound for a mortality risk to be ruled out,
discuss how the boundary may be influenced by a drug's demonstrated
benefits and risks;
    5. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of all-cause vs.
cardiovascular-specific endpoints, e.g., hospitalizations and deaths;
    6. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of adjudicating causes
of deaths and hospitalizations.

III. Participating in the Public Workshop

    Registration: To register for the public workshop, please visit the
following website https://fdaheartfailureendpointsindrugdev.eventbrite.com. Please provide
complete contact information for each attendee, including name, title,
affiliation, address, email, and telephone.
    Registration is free and based on space availability. Persons
interested in attending this public workshop must register by July 24,
2019, at 3 p.m., Eastern Time. Early registration is recommended
because seating is limited; therefore, FDA may limit the number of
participants from each organization. Registrants will receive
confirmation when they have been accepted. If time and space permit,
onsite registration on the day of the public meeting/public workshop
will be provided beginning at 8 a.m. We will let registrants know if
registration closes before the day of the public workshop.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Meg Pease-Fye at<PHONE_NUMBER> no later than July 1, 2019.
    Requests for Oral Comment: On the day of the meeting, a signup
sheet will be made available for those who wish to speak during the
public comment session. We will do our best to accommodate requests to
make public comments. Individuals and organizations with common
interests are urged to consolidate or coordinate their

comments. On the day of the meeting, based on demand, we will determine
the amount of time allotted to each presenter and the approximate time
each comment is to begin. Please note this will be oral comment only;
no slides or other presentation material is permitted. No commercial or
promotional material will be permitted to be presented or distributed
at the public workshop.
    Streaming Webcast of the Public Workshop: This public workshop will
also be webcast via https://collaboration.fda.gov/thf072519/.
    If you have never attended a Connect Pro event before, test your
connection at https://collaboration.fda.gov/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm. To get a quick overview of the Connect Pro program,
visit https://www.adobe.com/go/connectpro_overview. FDA has verified
the website addresses in this document, as of the date this document
publishes in the Federal Register, but websites are subject to change
over time.
    Transcripts: Please be advised that as soon as a transcript of the
public workshop is available, it will be accessible at https://www.regulations .gov. It may be viewed at the Dockets Management Staff
(HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. A link to the transcript will also be available on
the internet at https://www.fda.gov.

    Dated: June 24, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-13799 Filed 6-27-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 160 (Monday, August 21, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56787-56791]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17690]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 62

[EPA-R07-OAR-2023-0199; FRL-10830-01-R7]

Approval of State Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants;
MO; Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Control of
Emissions From Existing Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a Clean Air Act (CAA) plan and two state rules submitted by the
Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MoDNR) on July 25, 2022. This
plan was submitted to fulfill the state's obligations under the CAA to
implement and enforce the requirements of the Emissions Guidelines and
Compliance Times for municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. This plan
includes an inventory of affected sources and explains how the state
rules fulfill the regulatory requirements needed for EPA to approve the
plan. In addition, the EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the
State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by MoDNR for the purpose of
revising the Missouri rule entitled ``Municipal Solid Waste Landfills''
to incorporate by reference Emission Guidelines (EG) for MSW landfills.
EPA is proposing to approve this SIP revision based on EPA's finding
that the rule is as stringent as the rule it replaces and fulfills the
requirements of the CAA for the protection of the ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in St. Louis.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 20, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2023-0199 to www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received will be posted without
change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Written Comments''
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allyson Prue, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Permitting and Planning Branch, 11201
Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number: (913) 551-
7277; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Written Comments
II. What is being addressed in this document?
III. CAA 111(d) and Landfill Emission Guidelines Background
IV. Background for Missouri's Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Rule
for the St. Louis Ozone Nonattainment Area
V. Summary and Analysis of the 111(d) Plan Submittal
VI. Summary and Analysis of Missouri's SIP Revision
VII. Proposed Action
VIII. Incorporation by Reference
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Review

I. Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2023-
0199, at www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited
or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and

should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is proposing to approve Missouri's section 111(d) State Plan
for Existing MSW Landfills (Missouri's section 111(d) State Plan) and
two state rules accompanying the plan pursuant to 40 CFR part 60,
subparts B and Cf. Missouri state rule 10 Code of State Regulations
(CSR) 10-6.310 ``Restriction of Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills'' (which covers all areas of Missouri except St. Louis) and
10 CSR 10-5.490 ``Municipal Solid Waste Landfills'' (which covers the
St. Louis area) provide the enforceable portion of Missouri's section
111(d) State Plan. The state rules incorporate by reference the federal
plan located at 40 CFR part 62, subpart OOO as the underlying rule
which implements and enforces the applicable provisions under the 2016
MSW landfill EG at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf.
    As part of this action, EPA is also proposing to approve the
revision to 10 CSR 10-5.490, which implements the 2016 MSW landfill EG
at more stringent thresholds in the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area,
into Missouri's SIP. EPA's proposed approval of 10 CSR 10-5.490 is in
accordance with section 110 of the CAA and 40 CFR part 51.
    EPA's detailed rationale and discussion concerning Missouri's
section 111(d) State Plan, including the revisions to 10 CSR 10-6.310
and 10 CSR 10-5.490 can be found in the EPA Technical Support Document
(TSD), located in the docket for this rulemaking.

III. CAA 111(d) and Landfill Emission Guidelines Background

    Section 111 of the CAA, ``Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources,'' directs the EPA to establish emission standards
for stationary sources of air pollution that could potentially endanger
public health or welfare. These standards are referred to as New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS). Section 111(b) directs EPA to publish and
periodically revise a list of categories of stationary sources which
cause or significantly contribute to air pollution, and to establish
NSPS within these categories. Section 111(b)(1)(B) applies to new
sources.
    When NSPS are promulgated for new sources, section 111(d) and EPA
regulations require that the EPA publish an Emission Guideline (EG) to
regulate the same pollutants from existing facilities. Section 111(d)
addresses the process by which the EPA and states regulate standards of
performance for existing sources belonging to those categories
established in section 111(b). While NSPS are directly applicable to
new sources, EGs for existing sources (designated facilities) are
intended for states to use to develop a state plan to submit to the
EPA.
    EPA established requirements for state plan submittals in 40 CFR
part 60, subpart B. State submittals under CAA section 111(d) must be
consistent with the relevant emission guidelines, in this instance 40
CFR part 60, subpart Cf, and the requirements of 40 CFR part 60,
subpart B, and 40 CFR part 62, subpart A. If the state plan is complete
and approvable with reference to these requirements, EPA notifies the
public, promulgates the plan pursuant to 40 CFR part 62, and delegates
implementation and enforcement of the standards and requirements of the
emission guidelines to the state under the terms of the state plan as
published in the CFR. Once approved by the EPA, the state plan becomes
federally enforceable. If a State does not submit an approvable state
plan to the EPA, the EPA is responsible for developing, implementing,
and enforcing a Federal plan.
    The MSW landfills NSPS for new landfills and EG for existing
landfills were first promulgated by the EPA on March 12, 1996, in 40
CFR part 60, subparts WWW and Cc, respectively (61 FR 9905). We first
approved Missouri's section 111(d) plan for MSW landfills on April 24,
1998 (63 FR 20320). On August 29, 2016, EPA finalized revised Standards
of Performance for new MSW landfills and Emission Guidelines and
Compliance Times for Existing MSW Landfills (2016 MSW Landfills EG) in
40 CFR part 60, subparts XXX and Cf, respectively (81 FR 59331 and 81
FR 59275). The 2016 MSW Landfills EG revision updates the control
requirements and monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping provisions
for existing MSW landfill sources.
    On May 21, 2021, EPA finalized a federal plan to implement the 2016
MSW Landfills EG where state plans were not in effect (86 FR 27756). On
July 25, 2022, MoDNR submitted to EPA a formal section 111(d) plan and
two state rules for existing MSW landfills. These rules are 10 CSR 10-
6.310 ``Restriction of Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills''
(which covers all areas of Missouri except St. Louis) and 10 CSR 10-
5.490 ``Municipal Solid Waste Landfills'' (which covers the St. Louis
area). The state rules incorporate by reference the federal plan
located at 40 CFR part 62, subpart OOO to use as the underlying rule
which implements and enforces the applicable provisions under the 2016
MSW landfill EG at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf.
    For the reasons discussed below, EPA proposes to find that
Missouri's section 111(d) State Plan meets the relevant requirements of
the CAA section 111(d) implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 60,
subpart B and 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf.

IV. Background for Missouri's Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Rule for
the St. Louis Ozone Nonattainment Area

    The St. Louis area was designated nonattainment for the 1-hour
ozone standard in 1978 (43 FR 8962). On November 6, 1991, the EPA
promulgated a regulation which classified the St. Louis area as a
moderate ozone nonattainment area (56 FR 56694). The nonattainment area
consisted of Madison, Monroe, and St. Claire counties in Illinois; and
Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles, and St. Louis counties and St. Louis
City in Missouri. The St. Louis area is currently designated
nonattainment for the 8-hour (2015) ozone standard (83 FR 25776 \1\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 2015 8-hour ozone nonattainment designation included
part of Franklin County (Boles Township), St. Charles County, St.
Louis County, and the City of St. Louis in Missouri, and Madison and
St. Clair counties in Illinois.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 182(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires that each state in which
all or part of a moderate ozone nonattainment area is located submit a
SIP revision providing for a 15 percent reduction in emissions of
volatile organic compounds. These plans are commonly referred to as
Rate of Progress Plans (ROPP).
    EPA approved Missouri's 15 percent ROPP on May 18, 2000 (65 FR
31485). Missouri's 15 percent ROPP included state rule 10 CSR 10-5.490,
``Control of Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,'' that
required the use of gas collection systems to reduce VOC emissions by
98% at six municipal solid waste landfills in the St. Louis area. The
rule has been subsequently revised to maintain consistency with federal
requirements, with the most recent

revision approved by EPA on April 15, 2014 (79 FR 21187).
    Missouri revised 10 CSR 10-5.490 to implement the 2016 MSW landfill
EG at more stringent thresholds in the St. Louis ozone nonattainment
area and submitted the rule to EPA for approval as part of Missouri's
section 111(d) State Plan and for approval as a revision to Missouri's
SIP in accordance with section 110 of the CAA. For the reasons
discussed below, EPA proposes to find that Missouri's submission meets
the applicable requirements of section 110 of the CAA and 40 CFR part
51.

V. Summary and Analysis of the 111(d) Plan Submittal

    The EPA has reviewed Missouri's section 111(d) State Plan in the
context of the plan completeness and approvability requirements of 40
CFR part 60, subparts B and Cf, and part 62, subpart A. EPA's detailed
rationale and discussion concerning Missouri's section 111(d) State
Plan can be found in the EPA TSD located in the docket for this
rulemaking. As detailed in the TSD, the state followed all applicable
administrative procedures in proposing and adopting these rule and plan
actions in accordance with 40 CFR parts 60, subpart B, Sec. Sec.  60.23
through 60.26.
    Included within Missouri's section 111(d) State Plan are revisions
to 10 CSR 10-5.490 ``Municipal Solid Waste Landfills''; and 10 CSR 10-
6.310 ``Restriction of Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills''. These state rules incorporate by reference the new federal
emissions thresholds and compliance schedules (40 CFR part 62, subpart
OOO) for MSW landfills that accepted waste after November 8, 1987, and
commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification before July 17,
2014.
    Missouri's section 111(d) State Plan further describes how each
requirement of the federal regulations is met by the state plan and
rules. One element of this plan is the required inventory of affected
landfills in the state. This inventory is contained in Table 1 of the
state's submission which is included in the docket for this action. The
state also met the public notice requirements for the plan and rules as
demonstrated in Chapter 11 of the state's submittal. Table 2 of the
state plan includes the compliance schedule for existing MSW landfills
which is identical to the federal plan.
    As required by 40 CFR 60.24, Missouri identified 10 CSR 10-5.490
and 10 CSR 10-6.310 as the enforceable state mechanisms that implement
the MSW EGs. The state rules apply to each MSW landfill that has
accepted waste at any time since November 8, 1987 or has additional
design capacity available for future waste deposition, and that
commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification on or before
July 17, 2014. The state rules reference the appropriate section of 40
CFR part 62, subpart OOO for each relevant requirement such as
compliance times, test methods, monitoring, recordkeeping and
reporting. The provisions of 40 CFR part 62, subpart OOO are consistent
with the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf. EPA finds this
method of directly referencing federal regulations for each requirement
sufficient to ensure the accurate version of requirements is referenced
for affected facilities.
    EPA continues to retain the following authorities that are not
delegable to state agencies as described in 40 CFR 62.16710(b):
Approval of alternative methods to determine the site-specific
nonmethane organic compounds (NMOC) concentration or a site-specific
methane generation rate constant (k); Alternative emission standards;
Major alternatives to test methods (Major alternatives to test methods
or to monitoring are modifications made to a federally enforceable test
method or to a Federal monitoring requirement that may involve the use
of unproven technology or modified procedures or an entirely new
method); and waivers of recordkeeping. If a design plan includes
alternative requests under 40 CFR 62.16710(b), MoDNR must forward the
design plan to EPA for review and approval prior to its action on the
design plan.
    State rule 10 CSR 10-5.490 applies to the St. Louis area,
consisting of St. Louis City and Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles, and
St. Louis Counties. The requirements contained in state rule 10 CSR 10-
5.490 are identical to 40 CFR part 62, subpart OOO except that the
state rule implements a smaller landfill size limit and a lower
emission cutoff limit that triggers requirements for a landfill gas
collection and control system (GCCS). State rule 10 CSR 10-6.310
applies statewide to affected facilities. Landfills in the St. Louis
area covered by 10 CSR 10-5.490 are exempt from this statewide rule.
The requirements in the state rule are identical to 40 CFR part 62,
subpart OOO.
    The Missouri submittal package includes all materials necessary to
be deemed administratively and technically complete according to the
criteria of 40 CFR 60.27. Missouri notified the public on December 27,
2021 concerning the proposed 111(d) plan and held a public hearing on
January 27, 2022. The state's public comment period opened on December
27, 2021 and closed on February 3, 2022.

VI. Summary and Analysis of Missouri's SIP Revision

    Missouri revised 10 CSR 10-5.490 to implement the 2016 MSW landfill
EG at more stringent thresholds in the St. Louis ozone nonattainment
area. The emission standards and compliance schedules from 40 CFR part
62, subpart OOO are incorporated by reference into 10 CSR 10-5.490. The
requirements that apply to existing MSW landfills with design
capacities equal to or greater than 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m\3\
in subpart OOO apply to MSW landfills in the St. Louis area if their
design capacities are 1.0 million Mg and 1.0 million m\3\. The emission
threshold at which landfills must install and operate GCCS in the St.
Louis area rule is 25 Mg per year, as opposed to 34 Mg per year (50 Mg
per year for closed landfills) in subpart OOO. The lower thresholds in
10 CSR 10-5.490 also apply to closed landfills that seek to discontinue
their GCCS.
    The lower design capacity thresholds and emission thresholds in the
revision to 10 CSR 10-5.490 are identical to the design capacity
thresholds and emission thresholds previously approved into the SIP by
EPA and as part of Missouri's 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plan.
Missouri's incorporation by reference of 40 CFR part 62, subpart OOO
imposes more stringent requirements on existing landfills in the St.
Louis area than those imposed on landfills under the previously SIP-
approved version of 10 CSR 10-5.490. As such, EPA proposes to find that
the revisions to 10 CSR 10-5.490 do not interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or
any other applicable requirement of the CAA and are therefore
consistent with the requirements of section 110(l) of the CAA.
    The State submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The
State provided public notice on this SIP revision from December 27,
2021 to February 3, 2022 and held a public hearing on January 27, 2022.
The State received one comment on 10 CSR 10-5.490 concerning
incorporation by reference of federal requirements and modified the
rule in response.
    As explained above and in more detail in the TSD, which is part of
this

docket, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA,
including section 110 and implementing regulations. In accordance with
section 110 of the CAA and 40 CFR part 51, EPA is proposing to approve
10 CSR 10-5.490 into Missouri's SIP.

VII. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to determine that Missouri's section 111(d)
State Plan and associated state rules satisfy the requirements of 40
CFR part 60, subparts B and Cf.
    The EPA is proposing to approve the Missouri section 111(d) plan
and the two state rules for MSW landfills pursuant to 40 CFR part 60,
subparts B and Cf. Therefore, EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR part 62,
subpart AA, to reflect this action. The EPA's final approval of
Missouri's section 111(d) plan will result in the replacement of the
federal plan currently in place in the State of Missouri with the state
plan being proposed for approval. The state plan does not extend any
reporting or compliance deadlines stipulated in the current federal
plan.
    The EPA is also proposing to approve the July 30, 2022 state
effective version of 10 CSR 10-5.490, which incorporates requirements
established in EPA's updated Emission Guidelines, into the Missouri SIP
replacing the prior SIP-approved version of the state rule. EPA is
proposing to amend 40 CFR part 52, subpart AA, to reflect this action.
    We are processing this as a proposed action because we are
soliciting comments on this proposed action. Final rulemaking will
occur after consideration of any comments.

VIII. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include regulatory text in an
EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference Missouri state rules 10 CSR 10-5.490 and 10 CSR 10-6.310,
effective July 30, 2022, which regulate municipal solid waste
landfills, as discussed in detail in Section V. of this preamble, into
40 CFR part 62. EPA is also proposing to incorporate by reference
Missouri state rule 10 CSR 10-5.490, state effective July 30, 2022,
which regulates municipal solid waste landfills in the St. Louis area,
as discussed in detail in Section VI. of this preamble, into 40 CFR
part 52. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials
generally available through the docket for this action, EPA-R07-OAR-
2023-0199, at www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 7 Office
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Review

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Under the CAA,
the Administrator is required to approve a CAA section 111(d)
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7411(d); 42 U.S.C. 7429; 40 CFR part 60,
subparts B and Cf; and 40 CFR part 62, subparts A and OOO. Thus, in
reviewing CAA section 111(d) state plan submissions and SIP
submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices provided that
they meet the minimum criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed
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 Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     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); and
     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;
    In addition, the SIP and the CAA section 111(d) submission is not
approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area
where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    MoDNR did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part
of its 111(d) plan and SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable
implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an
evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ
in this action. Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this
action is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air
quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as
part of this action, and there is no information in the record
inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving
environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and
Indigenous peoples.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 11, 2023.
Meghan A. McCollister,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR parts 52 and 62 as set forth below:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart AA-Missouri

0
2. In Sec.  52.1320, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry ``10-5.490'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Missouri citation              Title         State effective date    EPA approval date       Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Missouri Department of Natural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Chapter 5--Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the St. Louis Metropolitan Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
10-5.490.................  Municipal Solid       July 30, 2022.......  [Date of publication  ...................
                            Waste Landfills.                            of the final rule
                                                                        in the Federal
                                                                        Register], [Federal
                                                                        Register citation
                                                                        of the final rule].

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

* * * * *

PART 62--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF STATE PLANS FOR DESIGNATED
FACILITIES AND POLLUTANTS

0
3. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart AA--Missouri Air Emissions From Existing Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills

0
4. Revise Sec.  62.6357 to read as follows:

Sec.  62.6357  Missouri Department of Natural Resources.

    (a) Identification of plan. Missouri plan for control of landfill
gas emissions from existing municipal solid waste landfills and
associated state regulations submitted on January 26, 1998, with
amendments on September 8, 2000, February 9, 2012, and July 25, 2022.
The plan includes the regulatory provisions cited in paragraph (d) of
this section, which EPA incorporates by reference.
    (b) Identification of sources. The plan applies to all existing
municipal solid waste landfills for which construction, reconstruction,
or modification was commenced before May 30, 1991, that accepted waste
at any time since November 8, 1987, or that have additional capacity
available for future waste deposition, and have design capacities
greater than 2.5 million megagrams and nonmethane organic emissions
greater than 50 megagrams per year, as described in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Cc.
    (c) Effective date. The effective date of the plan for municipal
solid waste landfills is June 23, 1998. The amendments are effective
January 16, 2001, May 30, 2012, and [date 30 days after date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], respectively.
    (d) Incorporation by reference. (1) The material incorporated by
reference in this section was approved by the Director of the Federal
Register Office in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
Copies of the material may be inspected or obtained from the EPA Region
7 office, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or from the source in paragraph (d)(2) of this section. Copies may be
inspected at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html or email
[email protected].
    (2) State of Missouri, 600 West Main Street, Jefferson City,
Missouri 65101,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (i) 10 CSR 10-5.490, Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, effective
July 30, 2022.
    (ii) 10 CSR 10-6.310, Restriction of Emissions from Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills, effective July 30, 2022.

[FR Doc. 2023-17690 Filed 8-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10939-10940]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4331]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2011-0001-N-2]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative
Feedback on Agency Service Delivery

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation.

ACTION: 30-Day notice of submission of information collection for
approval by the Office of Management and Budget and request for
comments.

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

SUMMARY: As part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the
process to seek feedback from the public on service delivery, FRA has
submitted a Generic Information Collection Request (Generic ICR):
``Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on
Agency Service Delivery'' to OMB for approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 30, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding these information collections to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, 725 Seventeenth Street, NW., Washington, DC, 20503, Attention:
FRA Desk Officer. Alternatively, comments may be sent via e-mail to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of
Management and Budget, at the following address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To request additional information,
please contact Ms. Kimberly Toone, Office of Information Technology,
Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Mail Stop
17, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) or Mr. Robert
Brogan, Office of Safety Planning and Evaluation Division, RRS-21,
Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., Mail Stop 17,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>). (These telephone
numbers are not toll-free.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback
on Agency Service Delivery.
    Abstract: The information collection activity will garner
qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely
manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving
service delivery. By qualitative feedback, FRA means information that
provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not
statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be
generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide
insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and
expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus
attention on areas where communication, training or changes in
operations might improve delivery of products or services. These
collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable
communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders.
It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement
of program management.
    The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: Timeliness,
appropriateness, content and accuracy of information, usefulness of
information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution
of issues with service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and
inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to
the public. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from
customers and stakeholders on the Agency's services will be
unavailable.
    FRA will only submit a collection of information for approval under
this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
     The collections are voluntary;
     The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on
considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or
burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both respondents and
the Federal Government;
     The collections of information are non-controversial and
do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
     Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions
from respondents who have experience with the program or may have
experience with the program in the near future;
     Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected
only to the extent necessary and is not retained;
     Information gathered is intended to be used only
internally for general management purposes and is not intended for
release outside of the agency (if released, the agency must indicate
the qualitative nature of the information);
     Information gathered will not be used for purposes of
substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
     Information gathered will yield qualitative information;
the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically
reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the
population of study.
    Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful
information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the
overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative
information will not be used for quantitative information collections
that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as
monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such
data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target
population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame,
the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the
precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed
sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing
potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any
testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding
the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely
to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for
other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative
results.
    As a general matter, information collections will not result in any
new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask
questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes,
religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered
private.

    On December 22, 2010, OMB--on behalf of DOT/FRA and other listed
Executive Agencies--published a 60-day notice in the Federal Register
soliciting comment on ICRs for which the agency was seeking OMB
approval. 75 FR 80542. DOT/FRA received no comments in response to this
notice.
    The summary below describes the nature of the information
collection requirements (ICRs) and the expected projected burden
estimates over the next three years \1\ for the ICR being submitted for
clearance by OMB as required by the PRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 60-day notice included the following estimate of the
aggregate burden hours for this generic clearance Federal-wide:
    Average Expected Annual Number of activities: 25,000.
    Average number of Respondents per Activity: 200.
    Annual responses: 5,000,000.
    Frequency of Response: Once per request.
    Average minutes per response: 30.
    Burden hours: 2,500,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current Actions: New collection of information.
    Type of Review: New Collection.
    Affected Public: Individuals and Households, Businesses and
Organizations, State, Local or Tribal Government.
    Average Expected Annual Number of activities: 6.
    Respondents: 6,300.
    Annual responses: 2,100.
    Frequency of Response: Once per request.
    Average minutes per response: 10 minutes.
    Burden hours: 1,062 hours.
    Comments are invited on the following: Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Department, including whether the information will
have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of
the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
    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 Office of Management and Budget control number.

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 22, 2011.
Kimberly Coronel,
Director, Office of Financial Management, Federal Railroad
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-4331 Filed 2-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: October 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 210)]
[Notices]
[Page 64318-64320]
[DOCID:fr29oc08-55]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0283; FRL-8380-9]

Ethylene Oxide; Preliminary Determination to Terminate Special
Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's preliminary determination to
terminate the Special Review of ethylene oxide (ETO). On January 27,
1978, EPA initiated Special Review based on developmental toxicity,
mutagenicity, and neurotoxic effects in workers (43 FR 3801). In the
early 1980s, the carcinogenicity of ETO became of concern and was added
to the Special Review. Since the initiation of the Special Review,
additional data and more comprehensive reviews of potential risks
associated with ETO exposure have been completed, including those
described in the 2006 Tolerance Reassessment and Risk Management
Decision (TRED) (http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/ethylene_oxide_
tred.pdf) and the 2008 Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED)
(http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1//REDs/ethylene-oxide-red.pdf) for ETO. In
the 2008 RED, the Agency addressed occupational risk concerns that were
the focus of the Special Review. During the reregistration process EPA
conducted a public, intensive review of ETO risks and benefits to
determine whether or not ETO registrations meet the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) standard for
registration. The Agency determined that the benefits of ETO use
outweigh the occupational risks associated with its use provided that
the risk mitigation measures outlined in the RED are adopted and label
amendments are made to reflect those measures. Because the risks that
were the basis of the Special Review have been evaluated and the Agency
has made a determination under FIFRA, as outlined above, the Agency is
proposing to terminate the Special Review of ETO.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 28, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0283, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2005-0283. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, 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 EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, 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 docket index
available

at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure 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 form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either in the electronic docket at http://
www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP
Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this
Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Bartow, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
703-308-8005; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    On January 27, 1978, EPA initiated Special Review based on
developmental toxicity, mutagenicity, and neurotoxic effects in workers
(43 FR 3801). In the early 1980s, the carcinogenicity of ETO became of
concern and was added to the Special Review. Since the initiation of
the Special Review, additional data and more comprehensive reviews of
potential risks associated with ETO exposure have been completed,
including those described in the 2006 TRED (http://www.epa.gov/
oppsrrd1/REDs/ethylene_oxide_tred.pdf) and the 2008 RED (http://
www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1//REDs/ethylene-oxide-red.pdf) for ETO. In the 2008
RED, the Agency addressed occupational risk concerns that were the
focus of the Special Review. During the reregistration process EPA
conducted a public, intensive review of ETO risks and benefits to
determine whether or not ETO registrations meet the FIFRA standard for
registration. The Agency determined that the benefits of ETO use
outweigh the occupational risks associated with its use provided that
the risk mitigation measures outlined in the RED are adopted and label
amendments are made to reflect those measures. The final risk
management decision regarding the risk to workers exposed to ETO was
completed with the 2008 RED. A detailed description of the rationale
and supporting documents can be found in http://www.regulations.gov
under EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0203. As described above and in the 2008 RED,
concerns were addressed under FIFRA and no further action is required
at this time. Because the risks that were the basis of the Special
Review have been evaluated and the Agency has made a determination
under FIFRA, as outlined above, the Agency is proposing to terminate
the Special Review of ETO.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    A pesticide product may be sold or distributed in the United States
only if it is registered or exempt from registration under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as amended (7 U.S.C.
136 et seq.). Before a product can be registered it must be shown,
among other things, that it can be used without causing ``unreasonable
adverse effects on the environment,'' FIFRA section 3(c)(5). The term
unreasonable adverse effects on the environment means:
    (1) Any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into
account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of
the use of any pesticide; or
    (2) A human dietary risk from residues that result from a use of a
pesticide in or on any food inconsistent with the standard under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act FIFRA section
2(bb).
    The burden of proving that a pesticide meets this standard for
registration is, at all times, on the proponent of initial or continued
registration. If at any time the Agency determines that a pesticide no
longer meets this standard, the Administrator may cancel this
registration under section 6 of FIFRA.
    The Special Review process provides a mechanism to permit public
participation in EPA's deliberations prior to issuance of any Notice of
Final Determination pursuant to a Special Review describing the
regulatory action which the Administrator has selected. The Special
Review process, which was previously called the Rebuttable Presumption
Against Registration (RPAR) process, is set forth in 40 CFR part 154,
published in the Federal Register of November 27, 1985 (50 FR 49015).
The purpose of this process is to help the Agency determine whether to
initiate procedures to cancel, deny, or

reclassify registration of a pesticide product because uses of that
product may cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, in
accordance with FIFRA.
    Prior to formal initiation of a Special Review, a preliminary
notification is sent to registrants and applicants for registration
pursuant to 40 CFR 154.21 announcing that the Administrator may
initiate a Special Review of a pesticide use. Registrants and
applicants for registration are allowed 30 days from receipt of the
notification to comment on the Agency's preliminary notification that
it may commence a Special Review.
    If the Agency determines, after issuance of a notification pursuant
to 40 CFR 154.21, that it will initiate a Special Review, 40 CFR
154.25(c) requires the Administrator to publish a Notice of Special
Review in the Federal Register. To conclude the Special Review after a
Special Review has been initiated, 40 CFR 154.31 requires the
Administrator to first publish a Notice of Preliminary Determination in
the Federal Register. This notice concerning ETO is being issued
pursuant to 40 CFR 154.31.
    That regulation requires the Administrator to respond to all
significant comments received on the Notice of Special Review and,
among other things, make a preliminary determination of whether any of
the applicable risk criteria have been satisfied. Finally, after
receipt and evaluation of comments on the Notice of Preliminary
Determination, 40 CFR 154.33 requires that the Administrator publish in
the Federal Register a Notice of Final Determination, including the
reasons for the determination.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides, Pests.

    Dated: October 21, 2008.
James B. Gulliford
Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances.
[FR Doc. E8-25674 Filed 10-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 120 (Monday, June 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35544-35545]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14597]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0135; FRL-9912-73-OW]

Extension of Request for Scientific Views for Updated National
Recommended Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; extension of the request for scientific views.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is extending the
comment period for the draft updated national recommended water quality
criteria for the protection of human health announced in a previous
notice entitled ``Updated National Recommended Water Quality Criteria
for the Protection of Human Health.'' In response to stakeholder
requests, the EPA is extending the period of time in which the Agency
will accept scientific views for an additional 30 days.

DATES: Scientific views must be received on or before August 13, 2014.
The comment period was originally scheduled to end on July 14, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2014-0135, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Mail: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Attention
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0135.
     Hand Delivery: Water Docket, EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC
West Building Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC,
20004, Attention Docket EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0135. Deliveries to the docket
are accepted only during their normal hours of operation: 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. For access
to docket materials, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, to schedule an appointment.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2014-0135. To ensure that EPA can properly respond to comments,
commenters should cite the section(s) or chemical(s) in draft updates
to which each comment refers. Commenters should use a separate
paragraph for each issue discussed, and must submit any references
cited in their comments. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment. Electronic files should avoid any form of
encryption and should be free of any defects or viruses.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2014-
0135. 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 whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means 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 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, 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 EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, 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
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Water
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heidi Bethel at U.S. EPA, Office of
Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division (Mail Code 4304T), 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 566-
2054; or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 13, 2014, the EPA announced the
availability of draft updated national recommended water quality
criteria for the protection of human health in a previous notice
entitled ``Updated National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for the
Protection of Human Health'' in the Federal Register (79 FR 27303). EPA
updated its national recommended water quality criteria for human
health for ninety-four chemical pollutants to reflect the latest
scientific information and current EPA policies. The draft updated
criteria are based on EPA's current methodology for deriving human
health criteria as described in ``Methodology for Deriving Ambient
Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health (2000)'' and
do not establish new policy. EPA's recommended water quality criteria

provide technical information for States and authorized Tribes to
establish water quality standards under the Clean Water Act to protect
human health.
    The original comment deadline was July 14, 2014. This action
extends the comment period for 30 days. Written scientific views must
now be received by August 13, 2014.

    Dated: June 13, 2014.
Elizabeth Southerland,
Director, Office of Science and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2014-14597 Filed 6-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 109 (Monday, June 8, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32316-32318]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13742]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-0869; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-11-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW4164, PW4168, PW4168A, PW4164-1D, PW4168-1D,
PW4168A-1D, and PW4170 turbofan engines. This proposed AD was

prompted by crack finds in the 6th stage low-pressure turbine (LPT)
disk. This proposed AD would require removal of affected 6th stage LPT
disks. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the 6th stage LPT
disk, which could lead to an uncontained disk release, damage to the
engine, and damage to the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 7, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108; phone: 860-565-
8770; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
0869; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katheryn Malatek, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this NPRM. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2015-0869;
Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-11-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
NPRM because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this NPRM.

Discussion

    We received reports of two crack finds in the front and rear knife-
edge seals on the forward arm of the 6th stage LPT disk during a
scheduled heavy maintenance shop visit. The suspected root cause of the
cracks is residual stress introduced during knife-edge weld repair.
This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the 6th
stage LPT disk, which could lead to an uncontained disk release, damage
to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed PW Service Bulletin No. PW4G-100-72-252, dated November
18, 2014. This service information identifies and directs removal of
the suspect 6th stage LPT disks. This service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or see ADDRESSES for other ways to
access this service information.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this NPRM because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This NPRM would require removing certain serial number 6th stage
LPT disks, part number 50N886.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 18 engines installed
on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that no additional
hours would be required per engine to comply with this proposed AD
because the engine is already disassembled in the shop when we require
the part to be removed. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. We
estimate that 6 of the engines will require replacement parts during an
LPT shop visit, and that the prorated replacement parts cost would be
$108,800 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of
this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $652,800.

Authority for this Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Pratt & Whitney: Docket No. FAA-2015-0869; Directorate Identifier
2015-NE-11-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 7, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW4164, PW4168,
PW4168A, PW4164-1D, PW4168-1D, PW4168A-1D, and PW4170 turbofan
engines with 6th stage low-pressure turbine (LPT) disks, part number
50N886, installed.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by crack finds in the 6th stage LPT disk.
We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the 6th stage LPT disk,
which could lead to an uncontained disk release, damage to the
engine, and damage to the airplane.

(e) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done. At the next LPT shop visit after the effective
date of this AD, remove from service 6th stage LPT disks with serial
numbers listed in the Accomplishment Instructions, Table 1, of PW
Service Bulletin (SB) No. PW4G-100-72-252, dated November 18, 2014.

(f) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, an ``LPT shop visit'' is defined as
maintenance which involves disassembly of the LPT rotor module.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request. You may email your request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Katheryn
Malatek, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA,
Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) PW SB No. PW4G-100-72-252, dated November 18, 2014, can be
obtained from Pratt & Whitney using the contact information in
paragraph (j)(3) of this proposed rule.
    (3) For service information identified in this proposed rule,
contact Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on May 12, 2015.
Colleen M. D'Alessandro,
Assistant Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-13742 Filed 6-5-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P