[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 217 (Monday, November 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77665-77666]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24973]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2010-0028, -0029, -0039, -0042, -0043, -0045, -0048, -
0049, -0051, -0054, -0056, -0057, -0058, -0059, -0060, -0061, -0062, -
0064, -0065, and -0070]

Railroads' Joint Request To Amend Their Positive Train Control
Safety Plans

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

ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides the public with notice that on November
3, 2023, twenty host railroads submitted a joint request for amendment
(RFA) to their FRA-approved Positive Train Control Safety Plans (PTCSP)
to implement on-board software changes to the human-machine interface
(HMI) which requires amendments to positive train control (PTC)
training for train crews. As this joint RFA may involve requests for
FRA's approval of proposed material modifications to FRA-certified PTC
systems, FRA is publishing this notice and inviting public comment on
the railroads' joint RFA to their PTCSPs.

DATES: FRA will consider comments received by December 4, 2023. FRA may
consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable
and without delaying implementation of valuable or necessary
modifications to PTC systems.

ADDRESSES:
    Comments: Comments may be submitted by going to https://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions for
submitting comments.

    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and the
applicable docket number. The relevant PTC docket numbers for the host
railroads that filed a joint RFA to their PTCSPs are cited above and in
the Supplementary Information section of this notice. For convenience,
all active PTC dockets are hyperlinked on FRA's website at https://railroads.dot.gov/research-development/program-areas/train-control/ptc/railroads-ptc-dockets. All comments received will be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov; this includes any personal
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gabe Neal, Staff Director, Signal,
Train Control, and Crossings Division, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In general, Title 49 United States Code
(U.S.C.) Section 20157(h) requires FRA to certify that a host
railroad's PTC system complies with title 49 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part 236, subpart I, before the technology may be
operated in revenue service. Before making certain changes to an FRA-
certified PTC system or the associated FRA-approved PTCSP, a host
railroad must submit, and obtain FRA's approval of, an RFA to its PTCSP
under 49 CFR 236.1021.
    Under 49 CFR 236.1021(e), FRA's regulations provide that FRA will
publish a notice in the Federal Register and invite public comment in
accordance with 49 CFR part 211, if an RFA includes a request for
approval of a material modification of a signal or train control
system. Accordingly, this notice informs the public that the twenty
host railroads' recent, joint RFA to their PTCSPs is available in their
respective public PTC dockets. This notice provides an opportunity for
public comment.
    On November 3, 2023, the following twenty host railroads jointly
submitted an RFA to their respective PTCSPs for their Interoperable
Electronic Train Management Systems (I-ETMS): Alaska Railroad; The Belt
Railway Company of Chicago; BNSF Railway; Peninsula Corridor Joint
Powers Board (Caltrain); Canadian National Railway; Canadian Pacific
Railway; Consolidated Rail Corporation; CSX Transportation, Inc.;
Kansas City Southern Railway; Kansas City Terminal Railway; National
Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak); New Mexico Rail Runner
Express; Norfolk Southern Railway; North County Transit District;
Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation (Metra);
Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District; South Florida
Regional Transportation Authority; Southern California Regional Rail
Authority (Metrolink); Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis; and
Union Pacific Railroad. This RFA includes on-board software changes to
the HMI which require amendments to PTC training for train crews. Their
joint RFA is available in Docket Numbers FRA-2010-0028, -0029, -0039, -
0042, -0043, -0045, -0048, -0049, -0051, -0054, -0056, -0057, -0058, -
0059, -0060, -0061, -0062, -0064, -0065, and -0070.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on this RFA by submitting
written comments or data. During FRA's review of these railroads' joint
RFA, FRA will consider any comments or data submitted within the
timeline specified in this notice and to the extent practicable,
without delaying implementation of valuable or necessary modifications
to PTC systems. See 49 CFR 236.1021; see also 49 CFR 236.1011(e). Under
49 CFR 236.1021, FRA maintains the authority to approve, approve with
conditions, or deny these railroads' joint RFA to their PTCSPs at FRA's
sole discretion.

Privacy Act Notice

    In accordance with 49 CFR 211.3, FRA solicits comments from the
public to better inform its decisions. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of
records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the privacy notice of regulations.gov. To facilitate
comment tracking, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the
name of their organization; however, submission of names is completely
optional. If you wish to provide comments containing proprietary or
confidential information, please contact FRA for alternate submission
instructions.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Carolyn R. Hayward-Williams,
Director, Office of Railroad Systems and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2023-24973 Filed 11-9-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		11/15/2022

TO:	New Source Performance Standards: Electric Arc Furnaces (EAFs) and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels (AOD): New Source Performance Standards - 40 CFR 60 Subparts AA & AAa Review; Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0049

FROM:	Donna Lee Jones, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Research Triangle Park, NC

SUBJECT:	Conference call with Electric Arc Furnace Industry Representatives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY

      A Microsoft(TM) TEAMS conference call was held on November 10, 2022, between representatives from the EPA, the Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA), the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), the Specialty Steel Institute of America (SSINA), and various Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) company representatives to discuss the proposed rule changes as a result of the technology review of the EAF New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) (40 CFR part 60, subparts AA, AAa, and new AAb). The Industry representatives provided a draft agenda, attached to this memorandum.

      The Industry representatives provided a recap of what they had recently emailed the EPA in response to the EPA's followup questions to Industry's written comments on the proposed rule. The industry responses included facility names (as CBI) for facilities where additional comments were provided regarding the proposed zero percent opacity limit. Also provided was clarification of the facility, referred to in an industry comment, that charged hot metal to an EAF and also a facility that was intending to do so in the future. The Industry also agreed to consult with their members on how to define a facility that produces various types of steel other than carbon steel for definition of potential particulate matter (PM) regulation for subcategories, in response to a submitted written industry comment that subcategories were needed.

      The Industry reiterated their comment that the EPA has no authority to make the proposed changes to subparts AA and AAa citing how congress structured the CAA. They said any changes would result in what the industry calls "retroactive rulemaking." Industry questioned the reasoning and rationale for the proposed changes to 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa. The EPA Region V representatives explained their concerns with the current proposed rules in terms of monitoring of fan amps and damper positions. They said that fan amps can be impacted by temperature, have variable speeds, and are impacted by multiple non-EAF sources at the facilities. The EPA Region V representatives further explained that the reporting of damper position is not useful if it is for different time periods than when it was established during the compliance test, and also that the damper positions change frequently during EAF operation. The EPA Region V representatives explained static pressure monitoring is a good alternative to monitoring fan amps and damper positions. Industry asked if the explanations to the various proposed subparts AA and AA rule changes were in the docket; the EPA said they were not because they thought the changes were self-evident.

      The EPA Region V representatives explained the rationale for the requirement to monitor opacity during the cycle when the highest emissions are expected. They said from their experience in inspections of steel mills, they have seen that facilities get good capture with direct shell evacuation control (DEC) during melting. But for charging and tapping, they see capture issues leading to higher emissions.

      An EPA representative asked the Industry if they could identify what percent of facilities are using the following monitoring options: furnace static pressure; fan amp and damper position; and volumetric flow and damper positions. The Cleveland Cliffs (CC) representative said that many of the CC facilities are using fan amps and damper position. He said it's a good system that has worked for them but for other facilities a change to how EAF operation is monitored would require equipment to be purchased.

      A Nucor representative stated in regard to the proposed zero percent melt shop opacity limit under subpart AAb, that six percent opacity, the limit in subpart AAa, allows for variability in operations whereas zero percent opacity does not. He said that a new facility can separate ladle metallurgy and EAF emissions, but if an existing source triggers the new NSPS due to a modification and has to meet the zero percent opacity limit it would be very difficult to retrofit in an existing facility and would involve redirecting air flows and installing capture equipment. Industry representatives commented that current facility data are not available that supports a zero percent shop opacity limit and they don't see any evidence in the record. They continued that zero percent opacity can't be met all the time, it's not the best system of emission reduction (BSER), and the costs would be incredibly high to achieve. An EPA representative mentioned they have seen another permit with a zero percent shop opacity limit for Finkl and Sons in Chicago, IL. An EPA Region V staff person asked why EAF facilities can't be designed to achieve zero percent shop opacity. An Industry representative said that the EAF facilities are large facilities with large bay doors where big equipment is coming in out, and that EAF operations are very dynamic.

      An Industry representative questioned if EPA was going to finalize the changes to subparts AA and AAa noting that many facilities would be immediately out of compliance upon promulgation. An EPA representatives said that if there are costs associated with the proposed changes, they won't be finalized. Industry said they would provide the EPA with counts of facilities that would need to add monitoring equipment and incur costs. An Industry representative asked the EPA what type of rule change would be considered to incur minor costs. An EPA representative stated that having to write something down would be considered minor.

      Industry representatives stated that they were not able to comment on EPA's rationale for the subpart AA and AAa changes since the rationales were not available to them, and questioned if EPA would repropose or supplement the docket with the rationales. The EPA clarified that they would not be able to repropose because they are under a consent decree schedule to finalize by May 2023, but which is likely to be extended to August 1, 2023, due to extension of the comment period. The EPA further explained that if they were to re-propose they would have to renegotiate more time and another extension to the final rule date.

      The EPA said they will add these meeting minutes to the docket. The Industry told the EPA that they would work on getting monitoring costs, but that it would take some time to coordinate.

                                                                    (continued)

ATTENDEES

Donna Lee Jones, EPA/OAQPS
Chuck French, EPA/OAQPS
Alexandra Letuchy, EPA/Region V
Dakota Prentice, EPA/Region V
Gabrielle Raymond, RTI International

Paul Balserak, American Iron and Steel Institute
Eric Stuart, Steel Manufacturers Association
Wayne D'Angelo, Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP, representing SMA
Joe Green, Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP, representing SSINA
Sean Alteri, Nucor Steel, Inc.
Wayne Denton, Outokumpu Steel, Inc.
Maria Eichelberger, North American Stainless, Inc.
Julianne Kurdila, Cleveland Cliffs, Inc.
Tom Sanicola, SSAB, Inc.
Rich Zavoda, Cleveland Cliffs, Inc.

SMA Proposed Agenda for November 10, 2022 Conference Between EPA and Steel Associations
Proposed Revisions to the NSPS for Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels
                        Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0049

                              SMA Proposed Agenda
I.	Introductions;
II.	Review and discuss Steel Associations' responses to EPA's follow-up questions on October 17 and 24;
III.	Discuss EPA's proposed changes to Subparts AA and AAa, and the Steel Associations' questions and concerns regarding the trigger for and timing of proposed new compliance obligations (per October 18 email from Wayne D'Angelo);
IV.	Discuss other key aspects of Steel Associations' August 15 comment letter and any EPA questions or reactions to those comments;
V.	Discuss status of EPA's promulgation process, procedural outlook, and anticipated timing;
IV.	Discuss whether EPA requires any additional data or information from the Steel Associations.