[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 4, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6125-6129]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01321]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037; FRL-10004-62-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Revision to Taconite Federal
Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
revisions to a Federal implementation plan (FIP) addressing the
requirement for best available retrofit technology (BART) for the
United States Steel Corporation's (U.S. Steel) taconite plant located
in Mt. Iron, Minnesota (Minntac or Minntac facility). We are proposing
to revise the nitrogen oxides (NOX) limits for U.S. Steel's
taconite furnaces at its Minntac facility because new information has
come to light that was not available when we originally promulgated the
FIP on February 6, 2013. The EPA is proposing this action pursuant to
sections 110 and 169A of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 5, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2010-0037 at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, 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. 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, please contact the person
identified in the ``For Further Information Contact'' section. For the
full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental
Scientist, Attainment Planning & Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. What action is EPA taking?

    On February 6, 2013, EPA promulgated a FIP that included BART
limits for certain taconite furnaces in Minnesota and Michigan (2013
Taconite FIP; 78 FR 8706). EPA is proposing to revise the 2013 Taconite
FIP with respect to the NOX BART emission limitations and
compliance schedules for U.S. Steel's Minntac facility in Minnesota.

II. Background

A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA's Regional Haze Rule

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas \1\ which
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' Congress added section
169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional haze issues. EPA
promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 1999. 64 FR
35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P (herein
after referred to as the ``Regional Haze Rule''). The Regional Haze
Rule codified and clarified the BART provisions in the CAA and revised
the existing visibility regulations to add provisions addressing
regional haze impairment and to

establish a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I
areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and
51.309, are included in EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40
CFR part 51, subpart P.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a).
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas
where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states, or EPA if developing a FIP,
to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at certain larger, often
uncontrolled, older stationary sources to address visibility impacts
from these sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA
requires that implementation plans contain such measures as may be
necessary to make reasonable progress toward the natural visibility
goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major
stationary sources \2\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install,
and operate BART as determined by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7) and includes ``taconite
ore processing facilities.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Regional Haze Rule, states (or in the case of a FIP, EPA)
are directed to conduct BART determinations for such ``BART-eligible''
sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to
any visibility impairment in a Class I area.
    On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at appendix Y to 40 CFR
part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist
states and EPA in determining which sources should be subject to the
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for
each source subject to BART. 70 FR 39104.
    The process of establishing BART emission limitations follows three
steps. First, states, or EPA if developing a FIP, must identify and
list ``BART-eligible sources.'' \3\ Once the state or EPA has
identified the BART-eligible sources, the second step is to identify
those sources that may ``emit any air pollutant which may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility'' in
a Class I area (Under the Regional Haze Rule, a source which fits this
description is ``subject to BART.''). Third, for each source subject to
BART, the state or EPA must identify the level of control representing
BART after considering the five factors set forth in CAA section
169A(g). The BART Guidelines provide a process for making BART
determinations that states can use in implementing the BART
requirements on a source-by-source basis. See 40 CFR part 51, appendix
Y, at IV.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``BART-eligible sources'' are those sources that have the
potential to emit 250 tons or more of a visibility-impairing air
pollutant, were not in operation prior to August 7, 1962, but were
in existence on August 7, 1977, and whose operations fall within one
or more of 26 specifically listed source categories. 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States, or EPA if developing a FIP, must address all visibility-
impairing pollutants emitted by a source in the BART determination
process. The most significant visibility impairing pollutants are
SO2, NOX, and particulate matter (PM).
    A state implementation plan (SIP) or FIP addressing regional haze
must include source-specific BART emission limits and compliance
schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a state or EPA has made
a BART determination, the BART controls must be installed and operated
as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years after the
date of the final SIP or FIP. See CAA section 169A(g)(4) and 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to what is required by the Regional Haze
Rule, general SIP requirements mandate that the SIP or FIP include all
regulatory requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting for the BART controls on the source. See CAA section 110(a).

B. BART for U.S. Steel's Minntac Facility

    On February 6, 2013, EPA promulgated a FIP (78 FR 8706) that
included NOX BART limits for taconite furnaces subject to
BART in Minnesota and Michigan. EPA took this action because Minnesota
and Michigan had failed to meet a statutory deadline to submit their
Regional Haze SIPs and subsequently failed to require BART at the
taconite facilities. The FIP established BART NOX limits of
1.2 lbs NOX per million British Thermal Unit (MMBTU) when
burning natural gas and 1.5 lbs NOX/MMBTU when co-firing
coal and natural gas. These limits were based upon the performance of
high stoichiometric (high-stoich) low-NOX burners (LNBs) \4\
at two of the taconite furnaces at U.S. Steel's Minntac facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Stoichiometry refers to the relationship between the actual
quantity of combustion air to the theoretical minimum quantity of
air needed for 100 percent combustion of the fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Basis for Revised NOX BART Limits for Minntac

    The NOX BART limits for taconite furnaces in the 2013
FIP were based upon U.S. Steel's experience to date with LNBs on
Minntac Lines 6 and 7, as well as an expectation that NOX
emissions would be higher when burning coal because of the nitrogen
content of coal. Since that time, U.S. Steel has collected additional
continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) data and has experience
operating LNBs on four of its five lines, Minntac Lines 4-7.
    While U.S. Steel's experience has confirmed that LNBs are a
technically feasible control technology for reducing NOX
emissions at taconite furnaces, and thus are the appropriate control
technology for establishing BART limits, the emissions data generated
through subsequent use of LNBs at Minntac indicate that LNB technology
cannot consistently achieve the same results on all taconite furnaces
while operating under various production scenarios and maintaining
pellet quality.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Minntac CEMS Data and Analysis, available in the docket
for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CEMS data also showed that NOX emissions are
actually lower when burning coal or a mixture of coal and natural gas
than when burning only natural gas. Further, the CEMS data showed that
U.S. Steel has been moving toward using natural gas rather than burning
coal or co-firing. Lines 6 and 7 at Minntac are the only lines that can
burn coal or a mixture of coal and natural gas. Over the six years of
CEMS data evaluated, the use of natural gas has increased dramatically,
from 15% to 97% of total operating hours on the two lines.\6\ Given the
trajectory of fuel markets, EPA has no reason to believe that U.S.
Steel will not continue to use natural gas at Minntac.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the new CEMS data and trend toward primarily burning natural
gas, U.S. Steel found that a revised NOX BART limit at
Minntac of 1.6 lbs/MMBTU averaged over 30 days and across all five of
its lines is the most stringent limit that can be met while maintaining
pellet quality, based upon its experience operating LNBs under various
production scenarios.\7\ To justify this limit, U.S. Steel provided EPA
with hourly NOX emissions data in lbs/MMBTU documenting
actual emissions levels after installation of LNB technology on Minntac
Lines 4-7.\8\ U.S. Steel also provided hourly NOX emissions
data in lbs/MMBTU for Line 3, which has not yet installed LNB
technology. Because the NOX limits in the 2013 FIP were
based on a rolling 30-day average, EPA evaluated the 720-hour
average\9\ NOX emissions levels

achieved by each line when burning natural gas. Averaging these
NOX emissions levels across Lines 4-7 resulted in an
emission rate of 1.6 lbs NOX/MMBTU based on a 720-hour
rolling average. Because of Line 3's similarity to Line 4, Line 3's
performance (after an LNB is installed) is expected to be consistent
with and have the same emission rate as Line 4. Averaging the
NOX emission levels across Lines 3-7 while assuming this
level of LNB performance on Line 3 also resulted in an emission rate of
1.6 lbs NOX/MMBTU based on a 720-hour rolling average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ U.S. Steel Confidential Settlement Communication, May 1,
2018.
    \8\ See Minntac CEMS Data and Analysis, available in the docket
for this action.
    \9\ Hourly NOX emissions data was available, which
allowed for the separation of hours when burning natural gas from
hours when burning coal or co-firing. Since there are 720 hours in a
30-day period, a 720-hour average was used to calculate
NOX emissions when burning only natural gas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this new information, EPA is proposing to replace the
NOX BART emission limits that currently apply to Minntac
Lines 3-7 with a single facility-wide NOX BART limit of 1.6
lbs MMBTU that will apply on a rolling 30-day basis. Under the BART
Guidelines, a source may be permitted to ``average'' emissions across a
set of BART-eligible emission units within a fenceline, so long as the
emission reductions from each pollutant being controlled for BART would
be equal to those reductions that would be obtained by simply
controlling each of the BART-eligible units that constitute BART-
eligible sources. See 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, at V. In this case,
given the unique issues U.S. Steel faced in trying to comply with the
individual limits in the 2013 FIP, EPA has determined that it is
appropriate to provide U.S. Steel with this additional flexibility. EPA
is confident that allowing U.S. Steel to average NOX
emissions levels across Minntac Lines 3-7 will achieve NOX
emission reductions equal to the reductions that would have been
obtained had EPA revised the individual limits for Minntac Lines 3-7
separately.
    In conclusion, a review of U.S. Steel's recent CEMS data when using
primarily natural gas indicates that a limit of 1.6 lbs/MMBTU, averaged
across all lines, is needed to operate under varying production
scenarios while maintaining adequate pellet quality. Therefore, EPA is
proposing that a limit of 1.6 lbs NOX/MMBTU, averaged across
all lines and over 30 days, represents NOX BART for U.S.
Steel's Minntac facility.

IV. CAA Section 110(l)

    Under CAA section 110(l), the EPA cannot approve a plan revision
``if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in
section 7501 of this title), or any other applicable requirement of
this chapter.'' \10\ We propose to find that these revisions satisfy
section 110(l). The previous sections of the notice explain how the
proposed FIP revision will comply with applicable regional haze
requirements and general implementation plan requirements. With respect
to requirements concerning attainment of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and reasonable further progress, the 2013
Taconite FIP, as revised by this action, will allow for greater
NOX emissions at the five subject-to-BART units as compared
to the 2013 Taconite FIP. All areas in Minnesota are designated as
attainment for all NAAQS with the exception of the Dakota County lead
nonattainment area in Eagan, MN. The nearest ozone, particulate matter
or nitrogen dioxide nonattainment areas are the ozone nonattainment
areas along the western shore of Lake Michigan.\11\ At the time these
areas were designated as nonattainment, EPA evaluated HYSPLIT (HYbrid
Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory) trajectories to
identify areas potentially contributing to monitored violations of the
NAAQS. None of these trajectories indicated that the area near Mt.
Iron, Minnesota had the potential to contribute any of the monitored
violations of the ozone NAAQS. EPA concludes that all areas impacted by
emissions from Minntac are in attainment with the NAAQS. These areas
have been able to attain and maintain the standards with emissions
levels above the emissions limits that we are proposing to approve.
Thus, the revision to the FIP proposed in this action will not
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Note that ``reasonable further progress'' as used in CAA
section 110(l) is a reference to that term as defined in section
301(a) (i.e., 42 U.S.C. 7501(a)), and as such means reductions
required to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) set for criteria pollutants under section 109. This term as
used in section 110(l) (and defined in section 301(a)) is not
synonymous with ``reasonable progress'' as that term is used in the
regional haze program. Instead, section 110(l) provides that EPA
cannot approve plan revisions that interfere with regional haze
requirements (including reasonable progress requirements) insofar as
they are ``other applicable requirement[s]'' of the Clean Air Act.
    \11\ The nearest area, Door County, WI, is over 300 miles from
Mt. Iron, MN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993)
and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and
13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). As discussed in detail in section
VI. C below, the proposed FIP is not a rule of general applicability.
The proposed FIP only applies to one taconite facility.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a ``collection of
information'' is defined as a requirement for ``answers to . . .
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or
more persons . . . .'' 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Because the proposed FIP
applies to just one facility, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not
apply. See 5 CFR 1320(c).
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    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 (OMB) control number.
The OMB control numbers for our regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40
CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA)

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction
that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or
special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed action on
small entities, I certify that this proposed action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
EPA's proposal revises control requirements at one source. The Regional
Haze FIP that EPA is proposing for purposes of the regional haze
program consists of imposing Federal control requirements to meet the
BART requirement for NOX emissions on specific units at one
source in Minnesota. The net result of the FIP action is that EPA is
proposing emission controls on the indurating furnaces at one taconite
facilities and this sources is not owned by small entities, and
therefore is not a small entity.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more
(adjusted for inflation) in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA
rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of UMRA
generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section 205 of UMRA do not apply when
they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 of
UMRA allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly,
most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
    Under Title II of UMRA, EPA has determined that this proposed rule
does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures that
exceed the inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of $100 million by State,
local, or Tribal governments or the private sector in any one year. In
addition, this proposed rule does not contain a significant Federal
intergovernmental mandate as described by section 203 of UMRA nor does
it contain any regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it
merely addresses the State not fully meeting its obligation to prohibit
emissions from interfering with other states measures to protect
visibility established in the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and
consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and
State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this
proposed rule from State and local officials.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. However, EPA did discuss this
action in conference calls with the Minnesota Tribes.

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

    Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to
any rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as
defined under Executive Order 12866; and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. EPA interprets E.O. 13045 as
applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the E.O.
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not
subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not establish an environmental
standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. This proposed
action addresses regional haze and visibility protection. Further,
because this proposed amendment to the current regulation will require
controls that will cost an amount equal to or less than the cost of
controls required under the current

regulation, it is not an economically significant regulatory action.
However, to the extent this proposed rule will limit emissions of
NOX, SO2, and PM, the rule will have a beneficial
effect on children's health by reducing air pollution.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
    VCS are inapplicable to this action because application of those
requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    We have determined that this proposed rule, if finalized, will not
have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: January 9, 2020.
Cheryl L. Newton,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is proposed to be amended as follows:

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.

0
3. In Sec.  52.1235, revise paragraph (b)(1)(iii) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1235   Regional haze.

* * * * *
    (b)(1) * * *
    (iii) United States Steel Corporation, Minntac: An aggregate
emission limit of 1.6 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 30-day
rolling average, shall apply to the combined NOX emissions
from the five indurating furnaces: Line 3(EU225), Line 4(EU261), Line
5(EU282), Line 6(EU315), and Line 7(EU334). To determine the aggregate
emission rate, the combined NOX emissions from lines 3, 4,
5, 6 and 7 shall be divided by the total heat input to the five lines
(in MMBTU) during every rolling 30-day period commencing either upon
notification of a starting date by United States Steel Corporation,
Minntac, or with the 30-day period from September 1, 2019 to September
30, 2019, whichever occurs first. The aggregate emission rate shall
subsequently be determined on each day, 30 days after the starting date
contained in such notification or September 30, 2019, whichever occurs
first.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-01321 Filed 2-3-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63942-63944]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24975]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87520; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2019-067]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating To Amend the Fee Schedule Applicable to the EDGX Equities
Trading Platform as It Relates to Pricing for Orders Routed to Cboe
EDGA Exchange, Inc. Using the ALLB, ROUC, ROUE, or DIRC Routing
Strategy

November 13, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 1, 2019, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'' or the ``Exchange'') is filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') a
proposed rule change to amend the fee schedule applicable to the EDGX
equities trading platform (``EDGX Equities'') as it relates to pricing
for orders routed to Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA'') using the
ALLB, ROUC, ROUE, or DIRC routing strategy. The text of the proposed
rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/edgx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the EDGX Equities fee schedule to
change the pricing applicable to orders routed to EDGA using the ALLB,
ROUC, ROUE, or DIRC routing strategy in securities priced at or above
$1.00, as a result of a pricing change by EDGA effective on November 1,
2019. The Exchange proposes to implement the proposed change to its fee
schedule on November 1, 2019. Currently, the Exchange provides a rebate
of $0.0024 per share for orders routed to EDGA using the ALLB, ROUC,
ROUE, or DIRC routing strategy (yielding fee codes AA, I, and RR),
which was a pass-through of the standard rebate EDGA had previously
provided to orders that removed liquidity from EDGA. Effective November
1, 2019, EDGA reduced its standard rebate per share for orders that
remove liquidity in securities priced at or above $1.00 from $0.0024 to
$0.0018. As such, the Exchange proposes to similarly reduce the per
share rebate for orders routed to EDGA (yielding fee codes AA, I and
RR) in securities priced at or above $1.00 from $0.0024 to $0.0018 in
order to reflect the reduction in the rebate available for orders
removing liquidity on EDGA.
    Currently, routed orders from the Exchange to EDGA using the ROUC,
ROUE, or DIRC routing strategy (yielding fee codes I and RR) in
securities priced below $1.00 result in a fee of 0.30% of the dollar
value.\3\ However, the fee schedule applicable to Cboe BZX Exchange,
Inc. (``BZX Equities'') and the Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'') have
no fee or charge for orders routed to EDGA,\4\ and EDGA imposes no fee
for liquidity removing orders entered directly on EDGA.\5\ Therefore,
the Exchange also proposes to eliminate such fee on the Exchange so
that the fee applied to orders on the Exchange routed to EDGA are
consistent with orders routed to EDGA from BZX Equities or BYX and with
removing liquidity orders entered directly on EDGA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Orders routed from the Exchange to EDGA using the ALLB
routing strategy in securities priced below $1.00 are currently
free.
    \4\ See footnotes 5, 10, and 11 of the BYX Exchange Fee
Schedule. See also footnotes 10, 11, and 15 of the BZX Equities
Exchange Fee Schedule.
    \5\ See fee codes N, W, 6, and BB from the EDGA Exchange Fee
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\6\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ which requires that Exchange Rules provide for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges
among its Members and other persons using its facilities and does not
unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
The Exchange operates in a highly-competitive market in which market
participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they
deem fee levels at a particular venue to be

excessive or incentives to be insufficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed change to
orders in securities priced equal to or greater than $1.00 is
reasonable because it reflects a pass-through of a recent pricing
change by EDGA for liquidity removing orders, as described above. The
Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable because it
will maintain proportionality with the standard corresponding rebate
offered by EDGA, thereby encouraging additional order flow to be
entered on the EDGX Book. The Exchange also believes the proposed
change to orders in securities priced less than $1.00 is reasonable
because it consistently removes fees from orders routed to EDGA from
the Exchange, BYX, and BZX Equities, and aligns with the fee of
liquidity removing orders entered directly on EDGA in securities priced
less than $1.00, while also maintaining Member interest in routing
orders through the Exchange by providing better pricing to Members that
choose to enter such orders on the Exchange, thereby encouraging
additional order flow to be entered on the EDGX Book. The Exchange
believes that additional order flow through the EDGX Book will result
in greater liquidity to the benefit of all market participants on the
Exchange by providing more trading opportunities.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed change constitutes an
equitable allocation of reasonable fees that is not unfairly
discriminatory because the proposed rebate for orders in securities
priced equal to or greater than $1.00 is designed to continue to
reflect the rebate offered (and recently updated) by EDGA to orders
that remove liquidity and would apply equally to all Members that
choose to use the Exchange to route orders to EDGA. Similarly, the
Exchange believes that the proposed change constitutes an equitable
allocation of reasonable fees that is not unfairly discriminatory
because the proposed fee for orders in securities priced less than
$1.00 is designed to consistently eliminate fees applied to orders
routed to EDGA from the Exchange, BZX Equities, and BYX, as well as
liquidity removing orders entered directly on EDGA, and would apply
equally to all Members that choose to use the Exchange to route orders
to EDGA. Furthermore, the Exchange notes that routing through the
Exchange is voluntary, and, because the Exchange operates in a highly
competitive environment as discussed below, Members that do not favor
the proposed pricing can readily direct order flow directly to EDGA or
through competing venues or providers of routing services.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The
Exchange believes the proposed routing fee change to orders in
securities priced equal to or greater than $1.00 will not impose an
undue burden on competition because the proposed change is merely
intended to maintain consistency between the Exchange's rebates for
orders routed to EDGA with the recently updated rebates offered by EDGA
for liquidity removing orders. Similarly, the Exchange believes the
proposed routing fee change to orders in securities priced less than
$1.00 will not impose an undue burden on competition because the
proposed change is intended to maintain consistency between the
Exchange's fees and similar fees applied by BZX Equities and BYX to
orders routed to EDGA and fees applied to liquidity removing orders
entered directly on EDGA.
    The Exchange does not believe the proposed fee change will impose
any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As stated, the
Exchange will uniformly assess the proposed routing fee on all Members
who choose to route orders through the Exchange to EDGA. As noted
above, the proposed fee intends to pass through the same rebates for
liquidity removing orders from EDGA on to Members, thereby, adding
order flow to the EDGX Book which will result in more trading
opportunities to the benefit of all market participants on the
Exchange.
    The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose
any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As noted above,
the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market and routing
through the Exchange is voluntary. Therefore, Members may opt to
disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives,
including 12 other equities exchanges and 32 alternative trading
systems, offer them better value or if they disfavor the proposed
change. Additionally, the Exchange represents a small percentage of the
overall market. Based on publicly available information, no single
equities exchange has more than 17% of the market share.\8\ Therefore,
no exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of
equity order flow. Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly expressed
its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in
determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets.
Specifically, in Regulation National Market System (``NMS''), the
Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining
prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation
of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting
market competition in its broader forms that are most important to
investors and listed companies.'' \9\ The fact that this market is
competitive has also long been recognized by the courts. In
NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the DC Circuit
stated as follows: ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow
is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .''.\10\ Regardless, the Exchange
notes that the proposed change to the EDGA-related routing fee in
securities priced equal to or greater than $1.00 is merely meant to
pass through the rebate associated with executing orders on that
market, and is therefore not designed to have any significant impact on
competition. Further, the proposed change to the EDGA-related routing
fee in securities priced less than $1.00 is meant to consistently
eliminate such fees associated with orders routed to EDGA across the
Exchange, BZX Equities, and BYX and liquidity removing orders entered
directly on EDGA. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its
proposed fee change imposes any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary
(October 28, 2019), available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 29,
2015) 70 FR 37495 (August 29, 2015).
    \10\ NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 615
F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

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

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \11\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \12\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \13\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. 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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2019-067 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2019-067. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email 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 website (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 website 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 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2019-067, and should be submitted
on or before December 10, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-24975 Filed 11-18-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 134 (Friday, July 14, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45269-45271]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14949]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2023-0026]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Notice and Request for
Comment; Examining Distraction and Driver Monitoring Systems To Improve
Driver Safety

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments on a request for approval of a
new information collection.

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

SUMMARY: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
invites public comments about our intention to request approval from
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a new information
collection. Before a Federal agency can collect certain information
from the public, it must

receive approval from OMB. Under procedures established by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal
agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of
information, including extensions and reinstatement of previously
approved collections. This document describes a collection of
information for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval titled
``Examining Distraction and Driver Monitoring Systems to Improve Driver
Safety.''

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 12, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Docket No. NHTSA-
2023-0026 through any of the following methods:
     Electronic submissions: Go to the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail or Hand Delivery: Docket Management, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Room W12-
140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except on Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help
you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> before coming.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit https://www.transportation.gov/privacy.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets via internet.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or access
to background documents, contact: Thomas Fincannon, Office of Vehicle
Safety Research, Human Factors/Engineering Integration Division NSR-
310, West Building, W46-447, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC
20590; [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), before an agency submits a proposed
collection of information to OMB for approval, it must first publish a
document in the Federal Register providing a 60-day comment period and
otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies
concerning each proposed collection of information. The OMB has
promulgated regulations describing what must be included in such a
document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)), an agency must
ask for public comment on the following: (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) how to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
and (d) how to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic
submission of responses. In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA
asks for public comments on the following proposed collection of
information for which the agency is seeking approval from OMB.
    Title: Examining Distraction and Driver Monitoring Systems to
Improve Driver Safety.
    OMB Control Number: New.
    Form Number(s): NHTSA Form 1718: Online Eligibility Questionnaire;
NHTSA Form 1719: Karolinska Sleepiness Scale; NHTSA Form 1720 Sleep
Food Intake; and NHTSA Form 1721: End of Visit Release Statement.
    Type of Request: New information collection.
    Type of Review: Requested: Regular.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from date of
approval.
    Summary of the Collection of Information:
    NHTSA proposes to collect information from the public as part of a
study to improve NHTSA's understanding of the differences in approaches
to driver state detection and the potential safety impacts of driver
monitoring systems (DMS). DMS refers to in-vehicle technology that can
detect driver state and interact with the driver through the human-
machine interface (the user interface that connects the driver to the
vehicle). For example, a DMS that detects drowsiness may display an
icon on the dashboard, such as a coffee cup, accompanied by a sound to
alert the driver that drowsiness is present.
    This study contains two tracks to assess DMS, and subjects may
participate in Track A, Track B, or both. This allows for a balance
between understanding how driver state detection changes within a
diverse testing sample and within an individual across driver states.
The overall sample will contain 80 data sets. To achieve this, 120
subjects are anticipated to be enrolled due to attrition across tracks.
Each track will have 40 completed data sets. Thus, the total sample
size is anticipated to be 68 subjects and will include subjects that
completed Track A only (n = 28), Track B only (n = 28), and those that
completed both tracks (n = 12). Track A will evaluate the ability of
the DMS to assess distraction and Track B will evaluate the ability of
the DMS to assess both drowsiness alone and distraction while drowsy.
    NHTSA proposes to collect information from licensed drivers about
their age, sex, driver license status, sleep and driving habits, and
general health history to determine eligibility for the study. Those
interested in participating will be asked about their ability to adhere
to various requirements of the protocol (e.g., abstain from caffeine)
and availability for a study appointment. Those who participate in the
study will come to the University of Iowa Driving Safety Research
Institute (DSRI), home of the National Advanced Driving Simulator
(NADS). Both tracks involve a consent process, breath alcohol
measurement, facial shape measurement, standing and seated height
measurement, training presentation, a familiarization drive in the
driving simulator, and sleepiness ratings before and after each study
drive as well as approximately every 30 minutes during a waiting
period. Both tracks also involve taking a digital image of the face so
that researchers can obtain RGB values to assess skin tone variability.
Track A only involves one study drive that occurs while the subject is
alert and distracted. In Track B, subjects will be asked about their
sleep and food intake (to confirm they have not consumed caffeine since
1:00 p.m., that they were awake by 7:00 a.m., and that they have
consumed no other substances that could influence driving) prior to an
overnight driving session that involves three study drives. The

first drive occurs while alert. The next two drives are counterbalanced
and will occur while drowsy (at least 14 hours awake and having
sleepiness ratings indicating drowsiness) and while drowsy and
distracted. Simulator data will be used to evaluate the ability of the
DMS to assess driver state.
    Respondents will volunteer for the study by responding to an
internet ad or via solicitation for volunteers from the DSRI subject
registry. Only potential subjects in the registry meeting inclusion
criteria will be contacted. Respondents will be asked a series of
questions to determine eligibility to participate in the study. The
questionnaire covers both Track A and Track B so respondents don't have
to complete the questionnaire more than once and so researchers can
ensure a subset of respondents meet criteria for both tracks. Criteria
for both studies are largely the same; differences are related to
ability to attend visits of a specified length, willingness to adhere
to different protocol elements, and sleep habits (needed only for Track
B). A research team member will answer all questions the respondent may
have and schedule eligible respondents who wish to participate for a
session at the DSRI.
    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information:
    NHTSA was established by the Highway Safety Act of 1970 (23 U.S.C.
101) to carry out a Congressional mandate to reduce deaths, injuries,
and economic losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes on the
Nation's highways. As part of this mandate, NHTSA is authorized to
conduct research as a foundation for the development of traffic safety
programs.
    In 2013, NHTSA published the final version of the Visual-Manual
NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines for In-Vehicle Electronic Devices.
In the decade since, vehicle technologies and interfaces have evolved
and a substantial amount of new research on the topic of driver
distraction has been conducted. As a result, NHTSA requires a rigorous
and thorough review to update the current state of knowledge on driver
distraction, attention management, and distraction/risk assessment. DMS
are currently deployed in many production vehicles. Current production
systems use different data sources, including driver-facing cameras,
vehicle inputs (e.g., steering wheel torque), driving performance
(e.g., lane departures), and other measures (e.g., time on task).
Future production systems are also likely to use physiological sensors
(e.g., heart rate) as tools to identify driver state more accurately.
    DMS could play a variety of roles in vehicles, including detecting
and alerting drivers to distraction, drowsiness, or impairment, and
then adjusting the vehicle technology to meet the needs of the driver
or providing support in particular situations. It is important for
NHTSA to be able to discern the differences in approaches to state
detection to understand the potential safety impacts of DMS. This
requires a comparison of various sensor approaches to driver state
monitoring and the development of a test protocol for different DMS
methodologies. The overall objective is to develop and deliver a
methodology that will assess the ability of DMS to accurately determine
driver state by collecting data to support a full assessment of the
factors associated with DMS and modeling driver state based on sensor
data in a driving simulator.
    Affected Public: Individuals aged 18+ from Eastern Iowa and the
surrounding areas who have volunteered to take part in driving studies
will be contacted for participation. They will be randomized evenly by
sex, though some imbalance will be permitted to be inclusive of
individuals who do not identify on the binary. Efforts will be made to
enroll a diverse age sample that broadly represents the age of the
driving population and includes those at greater risk of crashing
(e.g., less than 25 years of age and greater than 65 years of age).
Additional efforts will be made to enroll individuals with diverse skin
tones, oversampling those who rate themselves higher on the Fitzpatrick
Skin Type Scale. Businesses are ineligible for the sample and will not
be contacted.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 600.
    Study pre-screening is done via online questionnaire. It is
estimated that 600 individuals may begin the pre-screening
questionnaire. After pre-screening, it is estimated that 300
individuals could be potentially eligible and require contact to be
scheduled or to confirm eligibility requirements are met. It is
estimated that 120 individuals will be enrolled to complete 80 total
data sets (anticipated breakdown of Track A only = 28, Track B only =
28, both = 12).
    Frequency: Once.
    This is a one-time collection of information. The initial pre-
screening time is roughly 15 minutes and can be done at the
respondents' convenience using a device of their choosing. The only
requirement is an internet connection to access the online pre-
screening. Not all who begin this pre-screening will complete the form
in its entirety, and not everyone will meet study criteria. Those who
meet study criteria could be scheduled for Track A, Track B, or both.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 700 hours.
    The total estimated burden for the study is 700 hours. Track A
contributes 117 hours, and Track B contributes 473 hours. Online pre-
screening and visit reminders contribute 110 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost: The respondents will not incur
any reporting or recordkeeping cost from the information collection.
Respondents will incur a one-time cost for local travel to and from
DSRI, which is estimated not to exceed approximately $39.30 (based on
the standard mileage rate for business-related driving in 2023 and a
round trip distance of 60 miles). These transportation costs are offset
by subject compensation. For respondents in Track B, who will not be
permitted to walk, bike, or drive when leaving DSRI, an additional $70
will be provided to offset the costs of finding alternative
transportation.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspects of
this information collection, including (a) 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; (b) the accuracy of the Department's estimate
of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) 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.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter
35, as amended; 49 CFR 1.49; and DOT Order 1351.29A.

Tim John Johnson,
Acting Associate Administrator, Vehicle Safety Research.
[FR Doc. 2023-14949 Filed 7-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 70 (Friday, April 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 20198]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08248]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9909-38-Region-3]

Adequacy Status of the Submitted Maintenance Plan for the West
Virginia Portion of the Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD 1997 Fine
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard Nonattainment
Area for Transportation Conformity Purposes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of adequacy.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
notifying the public that EPA has found that the Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) in the West Virginia Portion of the
Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD 1997 Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
Nonattainment Area Maintenance Plan (Martinsburg Maintenance Plan),
submitted as a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision by the West
Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP), are adequate
for transportation conformity purposes. As a result of EPA's finding,
the State of West Virginia must use the 2017 and 2025 MVEBs from the
Martinsburg Maintenance Plan for future conformity determinations for
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: This notice is effective on April 28, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Asrah Khadr, Environmental Engineer,
Office of Air Program Planning (3AP30), United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA
19103,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Today's notice is simply an announcement of
a finding that EPA has already made. EPA Region III sent a letter to
WVDEP on March 6, 2014, stating that EPA has found that the MVEBs in
the Martinsburg Maintenance Plan for budget years 2017 and 2025,
submitted on August 5, 2013 by WVDEP, are adequate for transportation
conformity purposes. As a result of EPA's finding, the State of West
Virginia must use the 2017 and 2025 MVEBs from the August 5, 2013
Martinsburg Maintenance Plan for future conformity determinations in
the West Virginia Portion of the Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS Nonattainment Area. Receipt of the submittal was
announced on EPA's transportation conformity Web site. No comments were
received. The findings letter is available at EPA's conformity Web
site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm.
The adequate direct particulate matter (PM)X and nitrogen
oxides (NOx) MVEBs are provided in Table 1.

    Table 1--Martinsburg Maintenance Plan MVEBs for direct PM and NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Mobile vehicle     Mobile vehicle
                                     emissions budget   emissions budget
           Budget years               for direct PM-   for NOX-tons  per
                                      tons per year           year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017..............................                 83              2,621
2025..............................                 50              1,660
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation
plans, transportation improvement programs, and projects conform to
SIPs and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining
whether or not they do. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation
activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing
violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air
quality standards.
    The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's MVEBs are
adequate for conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
EPA described the process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP
budgets in a July 1, 2004 preamble starting at 69 FR 40038 and used the
information in these resources in making this adequacy determination.
West Virginia did not provide emission budgets for sulfur dioxide
(SO2), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), or ammonia for the
West Virginia Portion of the Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS Nonattainment Area because it concluded that
emissions of these precursors from motor vehicles are not significant
contributors to the area's PM2.5 air quality problem. The
transportation conformity rule provision at 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(v)
indicates that conformity pdoes not apply for these precursors, due to
the lack of MVEBs for these precursors and the State's conclusion that
motor vehicle emissions of SO2, VOCs, and ammonia do not
contribute significantly to the area's PM2.5 nonattainment
problem. This provision of the transportation conformity rule predates
and was not disturbed by the January 4, 2013 decision in the litigation
on the PM2.5 implementation rule.\1\ EPA has preliminarily
concluded that the State's decision to not include budgets for
SO2, VOCs, and ammonia is consistent with the requirements
of the transportation conformity rule. That decision does not affect
EPA's adequacy finding for the submitted direct PM and NOX
MVEBs for the West Virginia Portion of the Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-
MD 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS Nonattainment Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA issued conformity regulations to implement the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS (69 FR 40004, July 1, 2004 and 70 FR 24280,
May 6, 2005, respectively). Those actions were not part of the final
rule recently remanded to EPA by the Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia in NRDC v. EPA, No. 08-1250 (January 4, 2013),
in which the Court remanded to EPA the implementation rule for the
PM2.5 NAAQS because it concluded that EPA must implement
that NAAQS pursuant to the PM-specific implementation provisions of
subpart 4 of Part D of Title I of the CAA, rather than solely under
the general provisions of subpart 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please note that an adequacy review is separate from EPA's
completeness review, and should not be used to prejudge EPA's ultimate
approval action for the SIP. Even if EPA finds the budgets for the
Martinsburg Maintenance Plan adequate, the SIP could later be
disapproved. The finding and the response to comments are available at
EPA's conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2014-08248 Filed 4-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P