Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 17047 

the words ‘‘Commercial Airlift 

Division’’ in the following places: 

■ a. Section 861.3(e), (f)(1), and (k); 

■ b. Section 861.4(c)(2); and (e) 

■ c. Section 861.5(e), (g)(2)(i), 

(g)(2)(iii)(A), and (g)(4)(i). 

■ d. Section 861.6(c) 

Adriane S. Paris, 

Department of the Air Force Federal Register 

Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2022–05715 Filed 3–24–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–10–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 110 

[Docket Number USCG–2020–0216] 

RIN 1625–AA01 

Anchorage Grounds; Cape Fear River 

Approach, North Carolina 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS). 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing 

to amend the anchorage regulations for 

Lockwoods Folly Inlet, NC, and adjacent 

navigable waters, by establishing a new 

offshore anchorage, relocating the 

existing explosives anchorage and 

amending the anchorage regulations. 

The purpose of this supplemental 

proposed rule is to improve navigation 

and public safety by accommodating 

recent and anticipated future growth in 

cargo vessel traffic and vessel size that 

call on Military Ocean Terminal Sunny 

Point and the Port of Wilmington, North 

Carolina. We invite your comments on 

this supplemental proposed rulemaking. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before April 25, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2020–0216 using the Federal Decision 

Making Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public 

Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 

further instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this proposed 

rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant 

Gregory Kennerley, Sector North 

Carolina, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 

(910) 772–2230, email 

Gregory.M.Kennerley@uscg.mil; or Mr. 

Matthew Creelman, Waterways 

Management Branch, Fifth Coast Guard 

District, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 

(757) 398–6225, email 

Matthew.K.Creelman2@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

SNPRM Supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal 

Basis 

On May 8, 2020, the Coast Guard 

published a notification of inquiry in 

the Federal Register (85 FR 27343) to 

solicit public comments on whether we 

should initiate a rulemaking to establish 

an anchorage ground offshore in the 

approaches to the Cape Fear River, 

North Carolina, and to increase the size 

and relocate the existing Lockwood’s 

Folly Inlet explosives anchorage. After 

receiving favorable comments, the Coast 

Guard decided to propose the 

rulemaking. On August 17, 2021, the 

Coast Guard published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in 

Federal Register (86 FR 45936), stating 

why we issued the NPRM, and invited 

comments on our proposed anchorage. 

During the comment period that ended 

on October 18, 2021, we received five 

comment letters in response. The Coast 

Guard is now issuing this supplemental 

notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) 

to solicit comments on changes made to 

the NPRM. 

The purpose of this proposed rule is 

to accommodate recent and anticipated 

future growth in cargo vessel traffic and 

vessel size that call on Military Ocean 

Terminal Sunny Point and the Port of 

Wilmington, improve navigation and 

public safety, and to preserve areas 

traditionally used for anchoring. 

The legal basis and authorities for this 

notice of proposed rulemaking are 

found in 46 U.S.C.70006, 33 CFR 1.05– 

1, DHS Delegation No. 0170.1, which 

collectively authorize the Coast Guard 

to propose, establish, and define 

regulatory anchorage grounds. 

III. Discussion Comments, Changes, and 

Proposed Rule 

As noted above, we received five 

comments on our NPRM published 

August 17, 2021. One was in full 

support of the proposed rule, one had 

concerns over possible area use conflicts 

with offshore wind energy development, 

and three were regarding potential 

conflict with the anchorage and an 

artificial reef. The following sections 

detail the concerns raised by these 

comments. As a result, the Coast Guard 

has issued this SNPRM with proposed 

changes to the regulatory text of the 

rule. Specifically, we propose the 

western boundary and coordinates of 

the proposed Explosives Anchorage B 

be moved 1000 yards eastward to avoid 

a conflict with a North Carolina 

Division of Marine Fisheries Artificial 

Reef (AR–455). The remainder of the 

proposed rule remains unchanged. 

A. Offshore Wind Development 

One commenter raised concerns that 

the proposed anchorage would take up 

an area that could be utilized for 

offshore wind energy development, and 

by doing so, would deprive the local 

economy of investment and energy 

resulting from the development. The 

Coast Guard finds this comment to be 

not applicable to this particular 

rulemaking as the proposed anchorage 

area does not overlap or limit any 

known wind energy lease area as 

published by the Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management (BOEM), the lead 

agency in the U.S. offshore wind 

development. The Coast Guard works 

closely with BOEM in the planning of 

these offshore lease areas and has 

confirmed the area proposed for this 

rule is not under consideration for wind 

development. 

B. Artificial Reef 

There were three comments received 

by the Coast Guard with concerns that 

the westernmost boundary of the 

proposed Explosives Anchorage B 

overlapped the location of an artificial 

reef, North Carolina Division of Marine 

Fisheries’ Reef (AR–455). This overlap 

reveals potential hazards as anchoring 

vessels could damage the reef or 

possibly foul their anchors on the 

underwater structures. The Coast Guard 

agreed with these concerns and reached 

out to the North Carolina Division of 

Marine Fisheries to discuss a new 

agreeable boundary for the anchorage 

that would not conflict with AR–455. 

After reviewing the location of each of 

the underwater features within AR–455, 

the Coast Guard proposes to move the 

western boundary of Anchorage B 1000 

yards to the east of AR–455. This 

distance would prevent any vessel 

anchored within Anchorage B from 

damaging the reef or interfering with 

other vessels visiting the reef. This 

would reduce the overall size of 

anchorage area initially proposed, but 

the Coast Guard believes there is still 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
17048 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

sufficient area within the anchorage to 

meet anchorage needs. 

C. Proposed Rule 

The intent of this proposed rule 

remains unchanged. This proposed rule 

would formally establish an anchorage 

ground, Anchorage A, approximately 

eight nautical miles southwest of the 

Oak Island Light. This proposed rule 

would also increase the size and 

relocate Lockwoods Folly Inlet 

explosives anchorage to adjacent 

Anchorage A on its western boundary; 

and rename it Anchorage B. The specific 

coordinates for these proposed 

anchorage grounds are included in the 

proposed regulatory text at the end of 

this document. 

You may find an illustration of the 

anchorages in the docket where 

indicated under ADDRESSES. 

Additionally, the anchorage ground is 

available for viewing on the MidAtlantic Ocean Data Portal at https://

portal.midatlanticocean.org/visualize/. 

See ‘‘USCG Proposed Areas and 

Studies’’ under the ‘‘Maritime’’ portion 

of the Data Layers section. 

IV. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

Executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on a number of these statutes and 

Executive orders, and we discuss First 

Amendment rights of protestors. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess the costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

This SNPRM has not been designated a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, 

the SNPRM has not been reviewed by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). 

This regulatory action determination 

is based on the size, location, and 

historical vessel traffic data pertaining 

to the anchorage locations. The 

regulation would designate and preserve 

an approximately 22 square mile deep 

water area traditionally used by cargo 

ships for anchoring near existing traffic 

lanes. It would also relocate the existing 

explosives anchorage approximately 

five nautical miles further offshore 

increasing separation distances between 

vessels laden with explosives and the 

public, and expand its size from 

approximately five to seven square 

miles. This regulatory action provides 

commercial vessel anchorage needs 

while enhancing the navigation safety, 

environmental stewardship, and public 

safety. 

B. Impact on Small Entities 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, 

requires Federal agencies to consider 

the potential impact of regulations on 

small entities during rulemaking. The 

term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations 

that are independently owned and 

operated and are not dominant in their 

fields, and governmental jurisdictions 

with populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 

605(b) that this proposed rule would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

While some owners or operators of 

vessels intending to use the anchorages 

may be small entities, for the reasons 

stated in section IV. A above, this 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on any 

vessel owner or operator. The towns and 

communities along the Cape Fear River 

approaches have an economy based on 

tourism and numerous small entities 

and businesses. The establishment of 

Anchorage A and Anchorage B will 

increase controls over vessels that 

currently anchor in the general vicinity 

and increase the distance between 

anchored vessels and the shore and 

beaches, lessening impacts these small 

entities may currently experience. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment (see 

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it 

qualifies and how and to what degree 

this rule would economically affect it. 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule. If the 

proposed rule would affect your small 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please call or email the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast 

Guard will not retaliate against small 

entities that question or complain about 

this proposed rule or any policy or 

action of the Coast Guard. 

C. Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would not call for 

a new collection of information under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal 

Governments 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132 

(Federalism), if it has 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. We have analyzed 

this proposed rule under that order and 

have determined that it is consistent 

with the fundamental federalism 

principles and preemption requirements 

described in Executive Order 13132. 

Also, this proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments) because it would not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

If you believe this proposed rule has 

implications for federalism or Indian 

tribes, please call or email the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this 

proposed rule would not result in such 

an expenditure, we do discuss the 

potential effects of this proposed rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

F. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Directive 023–01, Rev. 1, 

associated implementing instructions, 

and Environmental Planning 

COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which 

guide the Coast Guard in complying 

with the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This proposed 

rule involves establishing an anchorage 

ground, Anchorage A, in an area 

traditionally used by cargo ships for 

anchoring in the approaches to the Cape 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 17049 

Fear River, NC; and increasing the size 

of and relocating the Lockwoods Folly 

Inlet explosives anchorage to an area 

adjacent to Anchorage A (on its western 

boundary), expanding its use, and 

renaming it Anchorage B. Normally 

such actions are categorically excluded 

from further review under paragraph 

L[59] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS 

Instruction Manual 023–01–001–01, 

Rev. 1. A preliminary Record of 

Environmental Consideration 

supporting this determination is 

available in the docket. For instructions 

on locating the docket, see the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We 

seek any comments or information that 

may lead to the discovery of a 

significant environmental impact from 

this proposed rule. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to call or email the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places, or vessels. 

V. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We view public participation as 

essential to effective rulemaking, and 

will consider all comments and material 

received during the comment period. 

Your comment can help shape the 

outcome of this rulemaking. If you 

submit a comment, please include the 

docket number for this rulemaking, 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. 

Submitting comments. We encourage 

you to submit comments through the 

Federal Decision Making Portal at 

https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, 

go to https://www.regulations.gov, type 

USCG–2020–0216 in the search box and 

click ‘‘Search.’’ Next, look for this 

document in the Search Results column, 

and click on it. Then click on the 

Comment option. If you cannot submit 

your material by using https://

www.regulations.gov, call or email the 

person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this proposed rule 

for alternate instructions. 

Viewing material in docket. To view 

documents mentioned in this proposed 

rule as being available in the docket, 

find the docket as described in the 

previous paragraph, and then select 

‘‘Supporting & Related Material’’ in the 

Document Type column. Public 

comments will also be placed in our 

online docket and can be viewed by 

following instructions on the https://

www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked 

Questions web page. We review all 

comments received, but we will only 

post comments that address the topic of 

the proposed rule. We may choose not 

to post off-topic, inappropriate, or 

duplicate comments that we receive. 

Personal information. We accept 

anonymous comments. Comments we 

post to https://www.regulations.gov will 

include any personal information you 

have provided. For more about privacy 

and submissions to the docket in 

response to this document, see DHS’s 

eRulemaking System of Records notice 

(85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020). 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110 

Anchorage grounds. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing 

to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows: 

PART 110—ANCHORAGE 

REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 110 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 2071, 46 U.S.C. 

70034; 33 CFR 1.05–1; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Revise § 110.170 to read as follows: 

§ 110.170 Cape Fear, N.C. 

(a) The anchorage grounds. All 

coordinates in this section are based on 

the World Geodetic System (WGS 84). 

(1) Anchorage A. The waters bound 

by a line connecting the following 

points: 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a)(1) 

Latitude Longitude 

33°47′59.09′′ N 78°14′58.67′′ W 

33°47′59.09′′ N 78°06′24.74′′ W 

33°46′01.22′′ N 78°06′24.74′′ W 

33°46′01.22′′ N 78°14′58.67′′ W 

(2) Anchorage B. Explosives 

anchorage. The waters bound by a line 

connecting the following points: 

TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (a)(2) 

Latitude Longitude 

33°47′59.09′′ N 78°17′14.00′′ W 

33°47′59.09′′ N 78°14′58.67′′ W 

33°46′01.22′′ N 78°14′58.67′′ W 

33°46′01.22′′ N 78°17′14.00′′ W 

(b) Definitions. As used in this 

section— 

Cargoes of particular hazard means 

‘‘cargo of particular hazard’’ as defined 

in § 126.3 of this title. 

Class 1 (explosive) materials means 

Division 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 

explosives, as defined in 49 CFR 173.50. 

Dangerous cargo means ‘‘certain 

dangerous cargo’’ as defined in 

§ 160.204 of this title. 

U.S. naval vessel means any vessel 

owner, operated, chartered, or leased by 

the U.S. Navy; and any vessel under the 

operational control of the U.S. Navy or 

Combatant Command. 

(c) General regulations. (1) Vessels in 

the Atlantic Ocean near Cape Fear River 

Inlet awaiting berthing space within the 

Port of Wilmington shall only anchor 

within the anchorage grounds defined 

and established in this section, except 

in cases of emergency. 

(2) Vessels anchoring under 

circumstances of emergency outside the 

anchorage areas shall be shifted to new 

positions within the anchorage grounds 

immediately after the emergency ceases. 

(3) Vessels may anchor anywhere 

within the anchorage grounds provided 

such anchoring does not interfere with 

the operations of any other vessel at 

anchorage; except a vessel may not 

anchor within 1,500 yards of a vessel 

carrying or handling dangerous cargoes, 

cargoes of a particular hazard, or Class 

1 (explosive) materials. Vessels shall lie 

at anchor with as short of a chain or 

cable as conditions permit. 

(4) Prior to entering the anchorage 

grounds, all vessels must notify the 

Coast Guard Captain of the Port Sector 

North Carolina (COTP) via VHF–FM 

channel 16. 

(5) No vessel may anchor within the 

anchorage grounds for more than 72 

hours without the prior approval of the 

COTP. To obtain this approval, contact 

the COTP via VHF–FM channel 16. 

(6) The COTP may close the 

anchorage grounds and direct vessels to 

depart the anchorage during periods of 

severe weather or at other times as 

deemed necessary in the interest of port 

safety or security. 

(7) The COTP may prescribe specific 

conditions for vessels anchoring within 

the anchorage grounds, including but 

not limited to, the number and location 

of anchors, scope of chain, readiness of 

engineering plant and equipment, usage 

of tugs, and requirements for 

maintaining communications guards on 

selected radio frequencies. 

(d) Regulations for vessels handling or 

carrying dangerous cargoes, cargoes of a 

particular hazard, or Class 1 (explosive) 

materials. This paragraph (d) applies to 

every vessel, except U.S. naval vessels, 

handling or carrying dangerous cargoes, 

cargoes of a particular hazard, or Class 

1 (explosive) materials. 

(1) Unless otherwise directed by the 

Captain of the Port, each commercial 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
17050 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

vessel handling or carrying dangerous 

cargoes, cargoes of a particular hazard, 

or Class 1 (explosive) materials must be 

anchored within Anchorage B. 

(2) Vessels requiring the use of 

Anchorage B must display by day a red 

flag (Bravo flag) in a prominent location 

and by night a fixed red light. In lieu of 

a fixed red light, by night a red flag may 

be illuminated by spotlight. 

Dated: March 10, 2022. 

Laura M. Dickey, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2022–06339 Filed 3–24–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 17 

RIN 2900–AR01 

VA Pilot Program on Graduate Medical 

Education and Residency; Extension 

of Comment Period 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) is extending the comment 

period of the proposed rule ‘‘Pilot 

Program on Graduate Medical Education 

and Residency.’’ This action is being 

taken in response to requests from 

stakeholders to allow additional time for 

interested persons to submit comments 

on the proposed rule. 

DATES: VA is extending the comment 

period on the proposed rule published 

on February 4, 2022 by 90 days. 87 FR 

6456. Ninety days from April 5, 2022 is 

July 4, 2022, which is a federal holiday; 

therefore, the VA is extending the 

comment period to the following day, 

July 5, 2022. Comments must now be 

received on or before July 5, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Comments must be 

submitted through 

www.Regulations.gov. Comments 

received will be available at 

regulations.gov for public viewing, 

inspection or copies. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrea Bennett, Office of Academic 

Affiliations, Department of Veterans 

Affairs, at (202) 368–0324 or 

VAMission403Help@va.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

February 4, 2022, VA issued a proposed 

rule to revise its medical regulations to 

establish a new pilot program related to 

graduate medical education and 

residency, as required by section 403 of 

the John S. McCain III, Daniel K. Akaka, 

and Samuel R. Johnson VA Maintaining 

Internal Systems and Strengthening 

Integrated Outside Network Act of 2018 

(Pub. L. 115–182, hereinafter referred to 

as the MISSION Act). See 87 FR 6456. 

Consistent with section 403 of the 

MISSION Act, the proposed rule 

established parameters by which VA 

would determine those covered 

facilities in which residents would be 

placed under the pilot program, such as 

certain consideration factors to 

determine whether there is a clinical 

need for providers in areas where 

residents would be placed. VA further 

proposed to prioritize placement of 

residents under the pilot program in 

Indian Health Service facilities, Indian 

tribal or tribal organization facilities, 

certain underserved VA facilities, or 

other covered facilities, as required by 

section 403 of the MISSION Act. In 

addition, VA proposed parameters to 

pay resident stipends and benefits and 

certain startup costs of new residency 

programs if residents are placed in such 

programs under the pilot program. 

The proposed rule provided an 

opportunity to submit comments by 

April 5, 2022. In response to requests 

from stakeholders to extend the 

comment period, VA extends the 

comment period by 90 days to allow 

additional time for interested persons to 

submit comments on the proposed rule. 

Comments must now be received on or 

before July 5, 2022. 

Signing Authority 

Denis McDonough, Secretary of 

Veterans Affairs, approved this 

document on March 21, 2022, and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Consuela Benjamin, 

Regulation Development Coordinator, Office 

of Regulation Policy & Management, Office 

of General Counsel, Department of Veterans 

Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2022–06293 Filed 3–24–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2022–0285; FRL–9645–01– 

R7] 

Air Plan Approval; Missouri; 

Restriction of Emissions Credit for 

Reduced Pollutant Concentrations 

From the Use of Dispersion 

Techniques 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Missouri on January 30, 2020. Missouri 

requests that the EPA approve revisions 

to a State regulation that limits the use 

of dispersion techniques to meet 

ambient air quality standards in the 

vicinity of major sources of air 

pollution. The use of certain dispersion 

techniques is prohibited by section 123 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The 

revisions to the rule are a revised 

restructured version of the same rule. 

These revisions are administrative in 

nature and do not impact the stringency 

of the SIP or air quality. The EPA’s 

proposed approval of this rule revision 

is in accordance with the requirements 

of the CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 25, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2022–0285 to https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket ID No. for this 

rulemaking. Comments received will be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on sending 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

‘‘Written Comments’’ heading of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven Brown, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air 

Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; 

telephone number: (913) 551–7718; 

email address: brown.steven@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1