[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2982-2983]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00773]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-181, OMB Control No. 3235-0184]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension: Form S-6

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    The title for the collection of information is ``Form S-6 (17 CFR
239.16), for Registration under the Securities Act of 1933 of
Securities of Unit Investment Trusts Registered on Form N-8B-2 (17 CFR
274.13).'' Form S-6 is a form used for registration under the
Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) (``Securities Act'') of
securities of any unit investment trust (``UIT'') registered under the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) (``Investment
Company Act'') on Form N-8B-2. Section 5 of the Securities Act (15
U.S.C. 77e) requires the filing of a registration statement prior to
the offer of securities to the public and that the statement be
effective before any securities are sold. Section 5(b) of the
Securities Act requires that investors be provided with a prospectus
containing the information required in a registration statement prior
to the sale or at the time of confirmation or delivery of the
securities.
    Section 10(a)(3) of the Securities Act (15 U.S.C. 77j(a)(3))
provides that when a prospectus is used more than nine months after the
effective date of the registration statement, the information therein
shall be as of a date not more than sixteen months prior to such use.
As a result, most UITs update their registration statements under the
Securities Act on an annual basis in order that their sponsors may
continue to maintain a secondary market in the units. UITs that are
registered under the Investment Company Act on Form N-8B-2 file post-
effective amendments to their registration statements on Form S-6 in
order to update their prospectuses.
    The purpose of Form S-6 is to meet the filing and disclosure
requirements of

the Securities Act and to enable filers to provide investors with
information necessary to evaluate an investment in the security. This
information collection differs significantly from many other federal
information collections, which are primarily for the use and benefit of
the collecting agency. The information required to be filed with the
Commission permits verification of compliance with securities law
requirements and assures the public availability and dissemination of
the information.
    The Commission estimates that there are approximately 1,019 initial
registration statements filed on Form S-6 annually and approximately
607 annual post-effective amendments to previously effective
registration statements filed on Form S-6. The Commission estimates
that the hour burden for preparing and filing an initial registration
statement on Form S-6 is 45 hours and for preparing and filing a post-
effective amendment to a previously effective registration statement
filed on Form S-6 is 40 hours. Therefore, we estimate that the total
hour burden of preparing and filing registration statements on Form S-6
for all affected UITs is 68,365 hours. We estimate that the cost burden
of preparing and filing an initial registration statement on Form S-6
is $38,825 and for preparing and filing a post-effective amendment is
$23,434. Therefore, we estimate that the total cost burden of preparing
and filing registration statements on Form S-6 for all affected UITs is
$53,787,113.
    Estimates of average burden hours and costs are made solely for
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and are not derived from a
comprehensive or even representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules and forms. Compliance with the information collection
requirements of Form S-6 is mandatory. Responses to the collection of
information will not be kept confidential. 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 OMB control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted by March 20, 2023.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Acting
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an
email to: [email protected].

    Dated: January 11, 2023.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-00773 Filed 1-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 215 (Monday, November 8, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68548-68551]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28172]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1045; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-101-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321
Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above that would supersede an existing AD. This
proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to
identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The
MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    One case of elevator servo-control disconnection has been
experienced on an aeroplane of the A320 family. Investigation has
revealed that the failure occurred at the servo-control rod eye-end.
    Further to this finding, additional inspections have revealed
cracking at the same location on a number of other servo-control rod
eye-ends. In several cases, both actuators of the same elevator
surface were affected. The root cause of the cracking has not yet
been determined and tests are ongoing.
    A dual servo-control disconnection on the same elevator could
result in an uncontrolled surface, the elevator surface being
neither actuated nor damped, which could lead to reduced control of
the aeroplane.
* * * * *
    The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address
the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 23,
2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44
51; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. 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; or in person at the Docket Operations office
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 Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-2141; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-1045;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-101-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on 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 proposed AD.

Discussion

    On August 7, 2009, we issued AD 2009-17-04, amendment 39-15995 (74
FR 41611, August 18, 2009). That AD corresponds to the European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2008-0149, dated August 5, 2008, and
requires a one-time inspection of the elevator servo-control rod eye-
ends to detect cracking and in case of findings replacement of the
cracked rod eye-end with a serviceable unit and readjusting the
elevator servo-control.
    Since we issued AD 2009-17-04, the EASA, which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2010-0046, dated March 19, 2010 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to supersede EASA AD 2008-0149 to correct
an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    One case of elevator servo-control disconnection has been
experienced on an aeroplane of the A320 family. Investigation has
revealed that the failure occurred at the servo-control rod eye-end.
    Further to this finding, additional inspections have revealed
cracking at the same location on a number of other servo-control rod
eye-ends. In several cases, both actuators of the same elevator
surface were affected. The root cause of the cracking has not yet
been determined and tests are ongoing.
    A dual servo-control disconnection on the same elevator could
result in an uncontrolled surface, the elevator surface being
neither actuated nor damped, which could lead to reduced control of
the aeroplane.
    To address this unsafe condition, EASA AD 2008-0149 [which
corresponds to FAA AD 2009-17-04] was issued to require a one-time
inspection of the elevator servo-control rod eye-ends for aeroplanes
which have accumulated more than 10,000 total Flight Cycles (FC)
since aeroplane first flight and, in case of findings, the
accomplishment of corrective actions. As a result of this one-time
inspection campaign, a significant number of rod eye-ends have been
found cracked. In addition, some cracks have been reported on rod
eye-ends that had not yet accumulated the 10,000 FC of the
established threshold.
    For the reason described above, this AD partially retains the
initial inspection requirement of EASA AD 2008-0149, which is
superseded, reduces the compliance time of the initial inspections
and introduces a repetitive inspection program.

    The corrective actions include replacing any cracked rod eye-end
with a serviceable unit and re-adjusting the elevator servo-control.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-27A1186, Revision
05, including Appendices 1 through 6, dated March 10, 2010. The actions
described in this service information are intended to correct the
unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 770 products of U.S. registry.
    The actions that are required by AD 2009-17-04 and retained in this
proposed AD take about 13 work-hours per product, at an average labor
rate of $85 per work hour. Based on these

figures, the estimated cost of the currently required actions is $1,105
per product.
    We estimate that it would take about 12 work-hours per product to
comply with the new basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $785,400, or $1,020
per product.

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); and
    3. 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing amendment 39-15995 (74 FR
41611, August 18, 2009) and adding the following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2010-1045; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-
101-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by December 23, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2009-17-04, amendment 39-15995.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -
122; A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133; A320-
111, -211, -212, -214, -231, -232, -233; and A321-111, -112, -131, -
211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes; certificated in any
category; all manufacturer serial numbers.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27: Flight
controls.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    One case of elevator servo-control disconnection has been
experienced on an aeroplane of the A320 family. Investigation has
revealed that the failure occurred at the servo-control rod eye-end.
    Further to this finding, additional inspections have revealed
cracking at the same location on a number of other servo-control rod
eye-ends. In several cases, both actuators of the same elevator
surface were affected. The root cause of the cracking has not yet
been determined and tests are ongoing.
    A dual servo-control disconnection on the same elevator could
result in an uncontrolled surface, the elevator surface being
neither actuated nor damped, which could lead to reduced control of
the aeroplane.
* * * * *

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Restatement of Requirements of AD 2009-17-04, With Reduced and Revised
Compliance Times and Revised Service Information

    (g) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) At the applicable times specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i)
and (g)(1)(ii) of this AD: Inspect both the left-hand and right-hand
inboard elevator servo-control rod eye-ends for cracking, in
accordance with the instructions of Airbus All Operators Telex (AOT)
A320-27A1186, Revision 04, dated April 3, 2009; or the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A320-27A1186, Revision 05, dated March 10, 2010. As of the effective
date of this AD, use only Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-
27A1186, Revision 05, dated March 10, 2010.
    (i) For airplanes that have accumulated 10,000 total flight
cycles or more as of September 22, 2009 (the effective date of AD
2009-17-04): At the later of the times specified in paragraphs
(g)(1)(i)(A) and (g)(1)(i)(B) of this AD.
    (A) Within 1,500 flight cycles after September 22, 2009.
    (B) Within 1,500 flight cycles after accumulating 10,000 total
flight cycles since first flight of the airplane.
    (ii) For airplanes that have accumulated less than 10,000 total
flight cycles as of September 22, 2009: At the later of the times
specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(ii)(A) and (g)(1)(ii)(B) of this AD.
    (A) Before the accumulation of 5,000 total flight cycles.
    (B) Within 20 months after the effective date of this AD but no
later than before the accumulation of 11,500 total flight cycles.
    (2) At the applicable time specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and
(g)(2)(ii) of this AD: Inspect both the left-hand and right-hand
outboard elevator servo-control rod eye-ends for cracking, in
accordance with the instructions of Airbus AOT A320-27A1186,
Revision 04, dated April 3, 2009; or the Accomplishment Instructions
of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-27A1186, Revision 05,
dated March 10, 2010. As of the effective date of this AD, use only
Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-27A1186, Revision 05, dated
March 10, 2010.
    (i) For airplanes that have accumulated 10,000 total flight
cycles or more as of September 22, 2009: At the later of the times
specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i)(A) and (g)(2)(i)(B) of this AD.
    (A) Within 3,000 flight cycles after September 22, 2009.
    (B) Within 3,000 flight cycles after accumulating 10,000 total
flight cycles since first flight of the airplane.
    (ii) For airplanes that have accumulated less than 10,000 total
flight cycles as of September 22, 2009: At the later of the times
specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(ii)(A) and (g)(2)(ii)(B) of this AD.
    (A) Before the accumulation of 7,500 total flight cycles.
    (B) Within 40 months after the effective date of this AD but no
later than before the accumulation of 13,000 total flight cycles.
    (3) Submit a report of the findings of the inspection required
by paragraphs (g)(1) and

(g)(2) of this AD to Airbus in accordance with the instructions of
Airbus AOT A320-27A1186, Revision 04, dated April 3, 2009; or the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A320-27A1186, Revision 05, dated March 10, 2010; at the applicable
time specified in paragraph (g)(3)(i) or (g)(3)(ii) of this AD. As
of the effective date of this AD, use only Airbus Mandatory Service
Bulletin A320-27A1186, Revision 05, dated March 10, 2010.
    (i) If the inspection was done after September 22, 2009: Submit
the report within 40 days after the inspection.
    (ii) If the inspection was done before September 22, 2009:
Submit the report within 40 days after September 22, 2009.

New Requirements of This AD

Actions

    (h) Repeat the inspections of the left-hand and right-hand
inboard and outboard elevator servo-control rod eye-ends for
cracking as required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD at
the later of the times specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of
this AD. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 5,000 flight cycles.
    (1) Within 5,000 flight cycles after the last inspection
required by paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD as applicable.
    (2) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD.
    (i) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by
this AD, before further flight, accomplish all applicable corrective
actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions and
figures of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-27A1186, Revision
05, dated March 10, 2010.
    (j) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install
on any airplane an elevator servo-control rod eye-end unless it is
new or has been inspected in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-27A1186,
Revision 05, dated March 10, 2010, with no crack findings.
    (k) Actions done before the effective date of this AD, in
accordance with the service information specified in Table 1 of this
AD are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements
of paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.

                   Table 1--Credit Service Information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Airbus AOT--             Revision--           Dated--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A320-27A1186....................     Original  June 23, 2008.
A320-27A1186....................           01  August 11, 2008.
A320-27A1186....................           02  March 30, 2009.
A320-27A1186....................           03  April 1, 2009.
A320-27A1186....................           04  April 3, 2009.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (l) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tim
Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before
using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies,
notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal
avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a principal
inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office. The AMOC
approval letter must specifically reference this AD. AMOCs approved
previously in accordance with AD 2009-17-04, Amendment 39-15995, are
approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (m) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2010-0046, dated
March 19, 2010; and Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-27A1186,
Revision 05, dated March 10, 2010; for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 23, 2010.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-28172 Filed 11-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 107 (Monday, June 5, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36468-36469]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11816]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1442; Airspace Docket No. 22-ASW-23]
RIN 2120-AA66

Establishment of Class E Airspace; San Saba, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace at San Saba, TX. This
action supports the establishment of new public instrument procedures.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, August 10, 2023. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR
part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), all
comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be
viewed online at www.regulations.gov using the FAA Docket number.
Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available on the website.
It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An electronic
copy of this document may also be downloaded from the Office of the
Federal Register's website at www.federalregister.gov.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at San Saba County Municipal Airport, San Saba, TX, to
support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.

History

    The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2022-1142 in the
Federal Register (87 FR 74052; December 2, 2022) to establish Class E
airspace at San Saba, TX. Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Incorporation by Reference

    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace

Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference
in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current
version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022,
and effective September 15, 2022. FAA Order Jo 7400.11G is publicly
available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These
amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO
7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas,
air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR 71 establishes Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of San
Saba County Municipal Airport, San Saba, TX.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified
that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19,
2022, and effective September 15, 2022, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASW TX E5 San Saba, TX [Establish]

San Saba County Municipal Airport, TX
    (Lat. 31[deg]14'09'' N, long. 98[deg]43'04'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of San Saba County Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 30, 2023.
Martin A. Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2023-11816 Filed 6-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Final Summary

of the

Discretionary RFA Small Business Outreach

for

EPA’s Proposed GHG Regulations

and their

NSR and Title V Impacts

February 5, 2010

Final Summary of the RFA Small Business Outreach

for

EPA’s Proposed GHG Regulations and their NSR and Title V Impacts

INTRODUCTION

	The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently developing a
group of regulatory actions for regulation of greenhouse gases (GHG).
One of these actions is a rule which was proposed on October 27, 2009,
entitled the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule (74 FR 55292), otherwise known as the
Tailoring Rule.  This regulation is intended to tailor the major source
applicability thresholds for GHG emissions under the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V programs of the Clean Air
Act and to set a PSD significance level for GHG emissions.

	While this proposed rule does not have a Significant Impact on a
Substantial Number of Small Entities (SISNOSE) and therefore does not
obligate EPA to convene a formal Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR)
panel, EPA is aware that many small entities may be interested in the
various GHG rulemakings currently under development.  As a result, in
collaboration with the Small Business Administration (SBA), EPA
conducted an outreach meeting designed to exchange information with
small entities that may be interested in these regulations.  The
outreach effort was organized and led by representatives from EPA’s
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards within the Office of Air
and Radiation, EPA’s Office of Policy Economics and Innovation, the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and the Office of Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.

	This summary includes the following:

Background information on the proposed rule under development;

A summary of the outreach meeting; and

The written comments and responses of the Small Entity Representatives
(SERs).

Once completed, the final summary for this outreach meeting will be
included in the rulemaking record for the Tailoring Rule.  In light of
the final summary, the Agency will make changes to the proposed rule
where appropriate.

	This document includes a summary of the advice and recommendations
received from the SERs identified for the purposes of this process
during the Outreach meeting.  Written comments submitted by the
representatives are provided in Appendix B to the summary.

	It is important to note that the findings and discussion in this
summary are based on the information available at the time this summary
was drafted.  EPA is continuing to conduct analyses relevant to the
proposed rule, and additional information may be developed or obtained
during the remainder of the rule development process and from public
comments on the proposed rule.

	This summary begins with a background section that describes the
purpose of the rule and any relevant regulatory history.  The next
section describes the small entity Outreach conducted by the EPA
workgroup.  The core of the summary collects the comments and
recommendations received from the SERs.

BACKGROUND

On April 2, 2007, the Supreme Court found that GHGs, including carbon
dioxide, are air pollutants covered by the CAA.  Massachusetts v. EPA,
549 U.S. 497 (2007).  The Supreme Court found that EPA was required to
determine whether or not emissions of GHGs from new motor vehicles cause
or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too
uncertain to make a reasoned decision. In April 2009, EPA responded to
the Court by proposing a finding that emissions of GHGs from new motor
vehicles and engines contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger both public health and welfare. On December 7,
2009, the Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding GHG under
section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:

Endangerment Finding: The Administrator found that the current and
projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed GHG--carbon dioxide
(CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)--in the
atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future
generations.

Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator found that the combined
emissions of these well-mixed GHG from new motor vehicles and new motor
vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which
threatens public health and welfare.

These findings, which were published December 15, 2009 (74 FR 66496), do
not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other entities.
However, they are a prerequisite to finalizing the EPA’s proposed
greenhouse gas emission standards for light-duty vehicles, which were
proposed by EPA in September 2009.  Under the Agency’s current
interpretation of existing regulations, Clean Air Act permitting
requirements under the PSD and title V programs for GHG emissions would
be triggered upon finalization of the light-duty vehicle rule, and thus
would be the first time GHGs emissions would be subject to either of
these Clean Air Act permitting programs.

 	As explained in the Tailoring Rule proposal, State permitting
authorities would be paralyzed by enormous numbers of permit
applications from sources with GHG emissions if PSD and Title V
requirements were applied at the applicability levels provided under the
CAA.  Without the Tailoring Rule, EPA estimates that permitting
authorities would receive approximately 40,000 PSD permit applications
each year; currently, they receive approximately 300.  In addition, they
would be required to issue Title V permits for approximately six million
sources; currently, their Title V inventory is some 15,000 sources.
These estimated permitting burdens are orders of magnitude greater than
the current inventory of permits and would vastly exceed the current
administrative resources of permitting authorities.  In addition, EPA
recognizes that under the applicability levels, an enormous number of
new sources that have not previously been subject to PSD or Title V
would have to get permits due to their GHG emissions.

	This rulemaking proposed to raise the permitting thresholds for sources
of GHG’s.  Specifically, EPA proposed that sources with the potential
to emit less than 25,000 tons per year of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) are not
required to obtain a Title V permit or PSD permit for a period of at
least five years, during which time, EPA will conduct a study of
permitting burdens and possible streamlining methods.  Under the
proposed rule, EPA would revisit the appropriate applicability
thresholds after the sixth year.  In the six years following
promulgation of this rule, the EPA estimates that, compared to baseline
estimates that do not include the effects of this rule, over six million
sources of GHG emissions will be allowed to operate without the need for
a title V permit, and 40 thousand new sources or modifying sources will
not be subject to NSR requirements for GHGs.  For this larger number of
smaller sources, this rule alleviates the regulatory burden associated
with obtaining a title V or PSD permit or complying with NSR Best
Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements.  Therefore, this
proposed action may be considered beneficial to these small entities as
it provides relief from regulation that would otherwise be required.
Given that these smaller sources of GHG account for only about 7 percent
of the total GHG CO2e emissions in the United States, while representing
over 95 percent of the total number of sources potentially requiring a
PSD permit for GHGs emissions under the permitting thresholds contained
in the CAA, the EPA believes the regulatory scheme proposed in the
Tailoring Rule represents a prudent path forward in addressing GHG
emissions under the Clean Air Act.

SMALL ENTITY REPRESENTATIVES

	The SERs that participated in this Outreach effort included the
following:

Small Entity Representatives In Person

Ben Brandes, National Mining Association (NMA)

Shannon Crawford, National Solid Waste Association (NSWA)

Bradford Frisby, National Mining Association (NMA)

Rhea Hale, American Forest and Paper Association (AFPA)

Jeff Hannapel, American Foundry Society (AFS)

Rick Krouse, Farm Bureau (FB)

Beth Milito, National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB)

Susan Miller, The Brick Industry Association (BIA)

Dan Moss, Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association (SOCMA)

Theresa Pugh, American Public Power Association (APPA)

Ed Repa, National Solid Waste Association (NSWA)

Small Entity Representatives Via Teleconference

Sally Allen, Gary-Williams Energy Cooperation and Small Business
Refiners

Leslie Bellas, National Lime Association (NLA)

Jeff Brediger, City of Orville, OH

Brian Brendle, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)

Terri Gerlach, Hartzell Hardwoods, Inc.

John Hopewell, National Paint and Coatings Association (NPCA)

Brittany Jablonsky, National Farmers Union (NFU)

Kathleen Lockhart, Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative (SCGC)

Bob Neufeld, Wyoming Refining Company

Karen Penafiel, Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA)

Steve Sherk, American Refining Group, Small Business Refiners

Bill Wenhauf, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA)

OUTREACH MEETING

The EPA, in collaboration with the SBA, conducted an outreach meeting
designed to exchange information with small entities that may be
affected by various rulemakings that EPA is developing for GHGs.  The
meeting focused, in particular, on the proposed Tailoring Rule.  Small
entity representatives participating in person and via conference call
were briefed on the rulemaking proposal and given the opportunity to
provide input that the EPA will consider as the rulemaking is further
developed.

	The meeting took place in Arlington, Virginia on November 17, 2009, and
included representatives from EPA, SBA, OMB, as well as the SERs listed
above.  Slides from the meeting are attached as Appendix A.

	EPA invited SERs to give their focused feedback on concerns that they
may have regarding this rulemaking.  The following questions were
e-mailed to each SER before the meeting and were discussed during this
outreach meeting:

	Are you a small business that would exceed the proposed 25,000 CO2e
threshold?

	Can you provide data showing this? If you are in excess of the
threshold, do you already have a title V or PSD permit due to other
pollutants?

	How many other small entities in your industry would have to get a new
permit?    How many would have to revise an existing permit?

	If we lowered the threshold, how would it affect your industry?  What
if we raised the threshold?

	What would the economic impacts of the current threshold be on your
business?  For a higher or lower threshold?

In addition, EPA requested that any written response to these questions
be submitted by December 1, 2009, which EPA later extended until
December 4, 2009.  The written responses that EPA received are provided
in Appendix B.  There were three respondents:  The American Forest and
Paper Association, the American Public Power Association, and the Small
Business Refiners.

	At the outreach meeting, EPA gave an overview of the suite of GHG
rulemakings being considered by EPA, followed by more specific
information regarding the proposed Tailoring Rule.  The slides from
these presentations are included in Appendix A.  After the
presentations, EPA opened the meeting to a more general discussion of
the questions presented above, as well as other general concerns
regarding GHG regulation under the PSD program.   Throughout the
outreach meeting, the SERs present, both in person and via
teleconference, openly discussed their comments and concerns with the
EPA representatives.  A summary of key comments from the outreach
meeting, many of which were made during discussions of EPA’s questions
for the SERs, as well as preliminary responses from the EPA
representatives present at the meeting, are provided below:

Section 424 of the Interior Environment Appropriations Act

The Farm Bureau representative commented that Section 424 of the
Interior Environment Appropriations Act states that, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, none of the funds made available in this Act or
any other Act may be used to promulgate or implement any regulation
requiring the issuance of permits under Title V of the Clean Air Act for
carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, water vapor or methane emissions
resulting from biological processes associated with livestock
production.  The Farm Bureau representative was concerned that the light
duty vehicle rule will trigger Title V permits for livestock operations
involving biological processes.  He asked how the enactment of this
provision that has been signed into law will affect the promulgation of
the Light Duty Vehicle Rule.  The BIA representative also inquired as to
whether Section 424 has any exceptions for biofuels.

EPA responded that the EPA was aware of Section 424 of the Interior
Environment Appropriations Act and that an internal EPA workgroup has
been formed to evaluate what this provision will mean for various EPA
rulemakings.  EPA stated that it had not yet reached a conclusion on
what Section 424 will mean with regards to the Tailoring Rule or other
EPA rulemakings.

Timing of the PSD Reconsideration Rule with the Tailoring Rule

The Farm Bureau representative commented that the Stephen Johnson PSD
Applicability Reconsideration rulemaking comment period closes prior to
the proposed Tailoring Rule.  He expressed concern that, conceivably,
the Stephen Johnson PSD Applicability Reconsideration rulemaking may
become final before the Tailoring Rule.  He expressed that if the
EPA’s preferred option regarding PSD applicability is not maintained,
such a gap could result in unintended small GHG emission sources being
subject to PSD.  The Farm Bureau representative requested that EPA
consider finalizing these two rulemakings at the same time so this gap
does not occur.  The American Public Power Association representative
further expressed that they considered requesting an extension of the
comment period for the Tailoring Rule but that they did not want to
increase that potential “gap.”

EPA responded that it is aware of the gap concern that the Farm Bureau
referred to and that the Administration and EPA have committed to
sequencing the GHG rulemakings in a common sense way.

Potential to Emit

OMB clarified that the proposed Tailoring Rule thresholds were based on
potential to emit and not actual emissions.  This clarification is
important because the GHG Mandatory Reporting Rule thresholds and draft
legislation in the Senate and House are based on actual emissions.  OMB
further stated that this means that a source that may not have to report
under the GHG Mandatory Reporting Rule may be subject to PSD and Title V
due to its potential to emit.  OMB requested whether EPA could provide
an example as to how potential to emit is calculated.

In response, an EPA representative stated that the docket provides
support (in the Technical Support Document) for their potential to emit
emissions thresholds selection.  He explained that EPA looked at actual
emissions, economic data, and operational information by industry sector
and made assumptions.  EPA stated that, for example, for residential
units, it is believed that most GHG emissions result from space and
water heating and that most emissions will occur in colder months.
Therefore, EPA calculated emissions and made adjustments to account for
greater heating needs in colder months and made similar extrapolations
for other sectors.

The American Public Power Association representative stated that most of
their equipment is designed to have far greater potential to emit than
actual emissions and that equipment is often not run at full capacity,
and that therefore, EPA has underestimated the regulatory impact of some
types of combustion equipment.  She opined that she is sure that they
are not the only industry sector whose operations do not run at full
capacity (e.g., batch chemical manufacturers, small refiners).  APPA is
not sure what their recommendation might be to EPA (e.g., it maybe to
base applicability emissions thresholds calculations on the number of
hours equipment is run or they may suggest the addition of some rule
clarification).  As proposed, the APPA representative stated that even a
12 MW boiler that does not run more than 600 hours per year would not
get below the PSD/Title V threshold because of emissions thresholds
being based on potential to emit.

Legal Basis of the Rule

The National Federation of Independent Business representative inquired
whether there were other rules where the “absurd results” and
“administrative necessity” arguments were used to support a
rulemaking and whether they were challenged.   The Farm Bureau
representative commented that in the “administrative necessity”
discussion, the court did not rule in favor of those seeking to apply
the doctrine in any of the cases cited.

EPA stated that there is an extensive discussion in the preamble to the
proposed Tailoring Rule regarding previous use of and court decisions
about these arguments.

Carbon Neutrality of Biomass

The American Forest and Paper Association representative commented that
the difference between EPA’s proposed Tailoring Rule and the Mandatory
Reporting Rule and other EPA rulemakings is that the Tailoring Rule does
not uphold the principle of carbon neutrality of biomass and does not
differentiate between biogenic emissions and fossil fuel emissions when
calculating whether a source would be major under this rule.  She
expressed that this is against all EPA precedent.  The AFPA
representative inquired whether EPA’s calculations included biogenic
emissions or just biofuel emissions (which is the usual case), and
whether there was a deliberate consideration to include biogenic
emissions in this case when EPA has not previously.  The AFPA
representative stated that an example of biogenic emissions would be the
combustion of wood residuals.  She explained that international and
Federal principles have upheld that emissions calculations were to
include all fossil fuel emissions but that biogenic emissions (i.e.,
combustion of wood residuals) did not need to be included.  The AFPA
representative explained that her association represents less than 50
percent of her industry sector and proportionately larger businesses and
that she imagined that there are a lot of smaller wood products
facilities that would be subject to PSD/title V under the proposed
rulemaking.  She estimated that about 5 mills would be subject to
PSD/title V under the proposed rule if EPA did not require the inclusion
of biogenic emissions and about 150 mills if EPA did require the
inclusion of biogenic emissions.

An EPA representative responded that he did not know whether biogenic
emissions were included in the calculations.  He added that EPA did not
look at distinct source categories at the proposed threshold level as
EPA’s goal was to establish the level at which the administrative
burden that would result from the triggering of PSD/Title V with the
promulgation of the Light Duty Vehicle rule would be manageable.  EPA
encouraged the AFPA to provide written comments and directed her to the
docket for the proposed rulemaking for the technical support document
that details the emissions analysis/calculations.

The American Public Power Association representative agreed with AFPA
regarding the need to exclude biogenic emissions from PSD/Title V
emissions calculations for purposes of applicability.  She reported that
many utilities have added biomass as a way of meeting state renewable
electrical/energy standards and that she would not be surprised if
Congress were to adopt national standards.  Based on her read, an
electric utility facility that is a completely renewable facility that
burns biomass could trigger PSD/Title V permitting requirements.  She
represents a 70 MW power plant that has no fossil generation at the
plant except for emergency storm management and, if it needed to
increase operations to meet load requirements, would trigger PSD and
Title V permit requirements for CO2, and possibly NOx, if biogenic
emissions are included in the final PSD and Title V GHG Tailoring Rule
applicability emissions threshold calculations.  Trying to meet
renewable standards in the Southeast is limited to the use of biomass.
She suggested that EPA make further BACT or Tailoring Rule decisions
that would exclude the CO2 content from biomass usage.

A representative from AFPA added that, from a heating value perspective,
fossil fuel is more efficient.  If fossil fuel and biomass are treated
equally under the proposed Tailoring Rule, there would not be any reason
for industry to use biomass over fossil fuel.  She opined that this is
contrary to National Climate Change Policy which encourages the use of
renewable fuels, and international policy, which is universally
accepted.

Process Emissions

The National Lime Association representative inquired whether EPA took
into account process emissions in its emissions analysis.  The NLA
representative stated that the lime production industry is comprised
mostly of small businesses, and the major modification proposed PSD
threshold level may prevent or delay facilities from doing energy
efficiency projects.  She explained that half of the emissions from lime
production are inherent in the process of manufacturing lime.  Many
facilities engage in energy efficiency programs to reduce fuel
consumption but allow them to increase production which could possibly
cause an increase in CO2 that could trigger PSD.  She explained that
making lime is done by heating limestone to a very high temperature
which causes a release of CO2.  For eight years they have been part of
Climate VISION to improve energy efficiency.  She requested that there
be some kind of exemption for those process emissions, as there would be
no Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for that and if they are
required to go through PSD review every time they do an energy
efficiency project, it would substantially burden small businesses.

In response, an EPA representative stated that all of the industry
specific comments have been useful.  He reiterated the purpose of the
proposed rulemaking and stated that all comments will be taken into
consideration.

Differences between Mandatory Reporting Rule and Tailoring Rule Metrics

The BIA representative commented that there are three differences
between the GHG Mandatory Reporting Rule and EPA’s proposed Tailoring
Rule.  The first difference is that the Reporting Rule requires
emissions calculations to be based on actual emissions and the Tailoring
Rule requires emissions calculations to be based on potential to emit.
The BIA representative stated that though her industry would like their
actual emissions and potential emissions to be closer together
(reflecting operations closer to capacity) this is not where they are
now, given the economy.  The second difference is that the proposed
Tailoring Rule emissions measurement is in short tons versus metric
tons.  She explained that when a source is close to the threshold line,
that 10 percent is important.  The third difference is that their
industry, under the Mandatory Reporting Rule, only needs to include
combustion emissions where the proposed Tailoring Rule would require all
of their emissions when determining whether they are a major source.

State Laws in conflict with Tailoring Rule

The Farm Bureau representative raised a concern regarding state laws.
He stated that though the Tailoring Rule will meet Federal requirements,
sources will still be subject to state laws.  States will likely not
address changes to their laws until the Tailoring Rule is final and
there may be a gap in coverage between the lower and the proposed higher
thresholds for GHGs.  The Farm Bureau representative inquired whether
EPA has a list of States that need to change their laws and regulations
and what they need to change to be consistent with the Tailoring Rule.
He added that such a list would be helpful when engaging States to
change either their statutes or regulations.  The Farm Bureau
representative commented that, until the state law issue is addressed,
there will be no impact from the proposed Tailoring Rule.

EPA acknowledged that some States may need to change their regulations
and laws to be consistent with EPA’s proposed rule.  An agency
representative reported that EPA has been speaking to a number of States
and are encouraging States to move forward now rather than later, and
that some States are already taking action on this.

Burden Estimates

Referring to slide 15 of EPA’s presentation, the National Farm Union
representative inquired whether EPA has estimated the cost associated
with those sources that would still be subject to PSD and Title V under
the proposed Tailoring Rule thresholds and requested that, if possible,
she receive a follow-up e-mail referring her to this information.  The
National Farm Union also inquired how EPA was defining small entity.

An EPA representative stated that the presentation was focused on burden
reduction as a result of the proposed rule, but that the Regulatory
Impacts Assessment (RIA) developed for the proposed Tailoring Rule
includes the costs that would still be incurred by sources subject to
PSD and Title V under the proposed Tailoring Rule.  He added that there
is uncertainty in data and information, and that data on agricultural
operations were scarce and that the EPA would welcome more data to be
submitted with any written comments on the proposed rule and/or as part
of this outreach.  EPA responded to the “small entity” question by
clarifying that a small entity differs depending on industry sector, and
explained that when he referred to “small” entities, he meant small
with regards to their emissions profile.

The National Federation of Independent Business expressed that slide 14
(2nd bullet) states that facilities proposed for exclusion comprise only
7 percent but that EPA stated that those entities were covered
elsewhere.

EPA responded by referring to slide 23 and explained that when you move
from a threshold of 25,000 CO2e to 100/250 CO2e, which would be the
threshold that would apply in absence of the proposed rule, there is an
incremental change in emissions that would be subject to PSD of about 7
percent (i.e., if the proposal is finalized, only 7 percent of GHG
emissions would be excluded from PSD applicability, though the number of
facilities excluded could be in the millions).  EPA also clarified that
those emissions may be covered under voluntary programs or energy
efficiency programs but not under another Federal permitting program.

The representative from the American Foundry Society asserted that there
would be a huge burden associated with the permitting requirements and,
depending on BACT (e.g., switching fuels), this burden would be even
more significant.  He also asserted that he believed EPA’s estimate of
$45,000 to obtain a Title V permit is low and that he believes the costs
are doubled.  Additionally, he commented that the cost of permitting
authorities per permit, where States need to go to a fee program, will
be an added cost for facilities.

The American Public Power Association representative requested that EPA,
when conducting its impacts analysis, do a more thorough job accounting
for the economic downturn over the last 12 months (utilities have lost
20 percent industrial/commercial load in the last year) and the economic
fragility.  She asserted that, without consideration of these economic
times, entities will likely move offshore.

The NLA representative commented that impact considerations include more
than applying for a permit, and could include the burden of the
permitting agency needing to review applicability determinations filed
with these agencies to ensure they are not going to be subject to PSD or
open to enforcement action.

The American Foundry Society representative stated that the cost of
controls and the cumulative effect of these regulations are both big
issues for small businesses.  He commented that their industry uses
fuels to heat metals and requiring that their industry switch fuels
could result in significant impacts.

New Permits Needed Because of Regulation of GHGs

The NLA representative responded that most of their facilities already
have Title V permits and the most significant issue for her industry is
the PSD significance level for modifications.  She reiterated that a
number of energy efficiency programs would be triggered for CO2 but not
for other regulated pollutants.

The City of Orrville, Ohio representative responded that, of the
approximately 60 members, all have Title V permits but that they shared
a similar concern as the NLA representative regarding the proposed
modification significant level, which might inhibit any kind of
improvements.

The representative from the American Foundry Society responded that
there are many large GHG emitters in his industry that were small
businesses, even more if applicability emissions thresholds are based on
potential to emit versus actual emissions.  He noted that 400-500
facilities in the metal casting industry, that would meet the definition
of small business, would exceed the 25,000 CO2e proposed threshold.  The
American Foundry Society representative clarified that his numbers were
based on the criteria given in the Reporting Rule and that these numbers
would need to be adjusted based on the criteria for the Tailoring Rule,
and that the adjusted numbers would be provided to EPA.  It was also
noted that most of these sources are area sources where EPA has
previously-determined it was not appropriate for these facilities to
have to obtain a Title V permit, though all have some type of
air/operating permit.  Under the proposed thresholds, these facilities
would be subject to Title V for the first time, and some would be
subject to PSD.

The Brick Industry Association representative responded that one to
two-thirds of their facilities have Title V permits because of hazardous
air pollutants, but that she did not believe there are any that are
subject to the PSD program.  She stated that, using AP-42 emission
factors, they have as many as 8 out of approximately 180 plants that
could be major for PSD, and that there may be one or two existing PSD
avoidance permits out there.  The BIA representative clarified that
including all emissions (e.g., including biogenic emissions), over 100
plants would be major based on CO2.   Looking at significance levels,
the brick industry would most likely be hit for fluorides and
particulate matter, and possibly CO2.  She noted that, again, this
industry has never had to undergo this kind of PSD review.  Of the 70
member companies, she estimated that only 6 are considered large with
the remaining companies being small.  The BIA representative stated that
she would provide EPA with data.

The Farm Bureau representative responded that approximately 500 dairy
operations (25 percent of all milk production), 100 pork operations (25
percent of all pork production), and 200 beef operations (60 percent of
all beef feed operations) would be subject to Title V under a 25,000
CO2e threshold.  He reported that they were unsure about poultry
operations, but that it was about 50 or 60 operations under the
Mandatory Reporting Rule.  The Farm Bureau representative stated that a
good percentage of farm operations would likely get out of the PSD
program under the proposed 25,000 CO2e threshold.  In response to a
question from EPA regarding whether any of the operations that would be
subject to Title V would be small, the Farm Bureau representative
responded that the way they calculate greenhouse gas emissions estimates
for livestock operations come from USDA 1605(b) (Greenhouse Gas Registry
Guidelines), where it is estimated that dairy cows emit approximately 4
tons per year (tpy) GHGs, beef cows emit approximately 2 tpy GHGs, and
hogs emit approximately 0.5 tpy GHGs (based on methane).  He stated that
he would get the numbers to EPA.

The American Public Power Association representative commented that her
association represents an estimated 2,000 State and Municipal electric
utilities, 95 percent of which qualify as small businesses under the
Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act (SBREFA) and 100 percent of which
are subject to the Unfunded Mandate Reduction Act (UMRA).  The UMRA’s
goal is to reduce regulatory requirements to State and Local
governments, where costs would be directly passed through to consumers.
The APPA representative reported that there are an estimated 325
electric utilities that currently have Title V operating permits, and
she thinks there is one existing PSD permit in Delaware.  The vast
majority of their members have no PSD permitting experience.  She opined
that EPA underestimated the regulatory impacts and costs to the
electrical utility industry with regards to PSD because of the
triggering of other pollutants.  She noted that one EPA presentation
slide indicated that there were about 160 electric utilities that would
get relief from the proposed rule, but she believed that those
facilities are likely manufacturing cogeneration facilities and not the
kind of electric generation utility that you would call up when the
lights go out and that she does not believe that there would be any
change for the kind of electric generation facility that provides
service to the community.

Fees

The American Public Power Association expressed concern regarding the
$43/ton Title V permit fee that States might want.  Some States cap
these fees at $4,000 per boiler or provide a facility cap, but that some
States do not.  This money would be money that would not be going back
to the city, which points to the Unfunded Mandates issue.  The APPA
representative explained that this money funds fire, policy, emergency
response personnel, and in some cases, teachers’ salaries.

Regarding Title V permit fees, an EPA representative explained that
States are not required to charge a minimum of $43/ton and that they are
required to make a determination of the funding needed to run their
Title V program, which must be approved by the EPA in order to collect
fees, and that funds from permit fees cannot be used for other purposes.
 He acknowledged APPA’s concern but explained that there are
provisions in the regulations that will minimize any abuse of Title V
fees in the program and noted that where abuses have been identified in
the past (i.e., Title V money used for other programs, such as
transportation), EPA has required return of the money.

The American Public Power Association representative requested that EPA
reissue the John Seitz memorandum on Title V operating permits to remind
States about the use of Title V fees.

The Farm Bureau representative inquired whether the use of Title V fees
to administer a State’s Title V permit program negates the
“administrative necessity” argument set out in the preamble.

EPA responded to the Farm Bureau representative by stating that a State
can administer their permitting program under the existing applicability
thresholds (e.g., because of a small number of sources),and collect fees
to do so if they can demonstrate to EPA that they can adequately
administer the program. Under such a scenario, EPA can approve an
alternative threshold limit to what EPA is proposing and part of that
could include State collection of fees.

SISNOSE for Mines

The National Mining Association representative commented that his
association looked at EPA’s Technical Support Document for the
proposed rule under the coal mining section and were concerned that
there may be a SISNOSE on underground coal mines in the industry.  He
further stated that they are talking with The Mine Safety and Health
Administration (MSHA) to retrieve updated information (acknowledging
that EPA obtained their numbers from MSHA) which has reported that the
number of facilities that are considered gassy is about 148.  The NMA
representative stated that they are waiting for a list of these
facilities that breaks out the number of employees and will share that
information with EPA.  He requested that EPA look at these facilities
further as, for their industry, a small business is one that is based on
500 or less employees.  Based on EPA’s RIA, he stated that about 98
percent of their industry is small, with 15 facilities above the
proposed threshold, and the other 600 to 800 facilities falling below
the threshold.  The NMA representative also commented that EPA’s
analysis assumes that no new underground coal mines will be built,
reporting that though there may be some shrinkage of mines because of
the economy, new mines are opening all the time.  He further commented
on EPA data that indicates that 103 coal mine sources would exceed the
25,000 CO2e threshold for methane as not indicating whether those 103
sources are small or not.  He requested that EPA evaluate these 103
sources to discern whether they are small businesses.

The RFA for the Suite of GHG Regulations

The NMA representative commented that the proposed Tailoring Rule was
certified as having no SISNOSE because the proposal is relieving the
regulatory burden.  He inquired that, while he understood that
perspective, does that mean the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA)
will be done in the Light Duty Vehicle Rule, and, if not, where will it
be done?  He further inquired, that if it is not going to be done, how
does the Small Business Administration Advocacy Group feel about that?

EPA responded by stating that the Light Duty Vehicle Rule had also been
certified as not having a SISNOSE because it does not directly impact
any small entities.

An SBA representative responded to NMA’s inquiry on this point by
stating that they had requested an RFA in the form of a panel and it did
not happen, and that they are in the process of preparing a comment
letter that addresses that issue.  He explained that though the outreach
meeting is part of an effort to educate small entities, in SBA’s
opinion it is not the same thing as having a panel.

The Farm Bureau representative agreed that the impacts of Title V and
PSD should be addressed before going forward, and though he agreed that
it should have been done under the Light Duty Vehicle Rule, he also
believed that it could be argued as necessary under this proposed
rulemaking.

BACT for CO2

The BIA representative asked what the controls for CO2 are, other than
energy efficiency.

EPA responded that the GHG BACT Work Group (a subgroup of the Clean Air
Act Advisory Committee) has been tasked by the Agency to look at this
issue for individual source categories and the Work Group’s goal is to
complete this effort by March, when the light duty vehicle rule is
scheduled to be finalized.

The American Public Power Association representative commented that she
was at EPA a couple of weeks prior to this meeting where EPA invited
electric utilities to discuss and discern what is potentially BACT for
the electric utility industry with about 35 EPA staffers and
contractors.  The thinking at the meeting was that it would be geologic
sequestration to meet something parallel to a natural gas standard.  She
explained that the concept presented to them was that a power plant
could retrofit to meet a natural gas equivalent standard by gasifying
coal or by doing geological sequestration of CO2.  She asserted that,
although carbon sequestration has been commercially demonstrated by the
oil and gas industry, it is not commercially demonstrated in the U.S. or
the world for power plants (that neither have the infrastructure or
operations to make carbon sequestration a feasible option).  For most
industries, BACT over the next 25 years for CO2 will entail energy
efficiency or switching to natural gas, nuclear power, renewable, or
some combination of these.

The American Public Power Association representative stated that in the
electric utility industry, they want to keep coal as one of their
options along with other options to maximize choices in fuel.  Even if
carbon sequestration is commercially demonstrated for power plants in
the next ten years, she opined that it would take ten to fifteen years
to obtain the proper Water Permits as it is a completely different
process than controlling air pollutants.  The American Public Power
Association representative offered EPA more information on this issue.

The BIA representative added that their industry is also being hit by
additional Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards and are
having difficulty addressing how to deal will all these regulations in a
bad economy.  She reported that, for her industry, there is no offshore
option.

Appendix A

Slides from the Outreach Meeting

Slide 1

Slide 2

Slide 3

Slide 1

Slide 2

Slide 3

Slide 4

Slide 5

Slide 6

Slide 7

Slide 8

Slide 9

Slide 10

Slide 11

Slide 12

Slide 13

Slide 14

Slide 15

Slide 16

Slide 17

Slide 18

Slide 19

Slide 20

Slide 21

Slide 22

Slide 23

Slide 24

Slide 25

Slide 26

Slide 27

Slide 28

Appendix B

 Climate VISION (Voluntary Innovative Sector Initiatives:  Opportunities
Now) is a voluntary public-private partnership initiative to improve
energy efficiency and GHG intensity in energy-intensive industrial
sectors, by accelerating the transition to technologies, practices, and
processes that are cleaner, more efficient, and capable of reducing,
capturing or sequestering GHGs.  http://www.climatevision.gov

 PAGE

 PAGE   2

 PAGE

 PAGE   33