20322 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

2Memorandum from Principal Deputy Assistant 

Attorney General Pamela S. Karlan, Civil Rights 

Division, U.S. Department of Justice, to Federal 

Agency Civil Rights Directors and General 

Counsels, Application of Bostock v. Clayton County 

to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 

(Mar. 26, 2021), available at https://

www.justice.gov/crt/page/file/1383026/download. 

3Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of 

Justice, Title IX Legal Manual, Title IX Cover 

Addendum post-Bostock, available at https://

www.justice.gov/file/1423496/download. 

4U.S. Department of Education, Enforcement of 

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 with 

Respect to Discrimination Based on Sexual 

Orientation and Gender Identity in Light of Bostock 

v. Clayton County, Notice of Interpretation, 86 FR 

32637 (June 22, 2021). 

5See, e.g., Grimm, 972 F.3d at 617–18 (describing 

injuries to a transgender boy’s physical and 

emotional health as a result of denial of equal 

treatment); Dodds v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., 845 F.3d 

217, 221–22 (6th Cir. 2016) (describing ‘‘substantial 

and immediate adverse effects on the daily life and 

well-being of an eleven-year-old’’ transgender girl 

from denial of equal treatment); Doe v. Univ. of 

Scranton, No. 3:19–CV–01486, 2020 WL 5993766, 

at *1–3 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 9, 2020) (describing 

harassment and physical targeting of a gay college 

student that interfered with the student’s 

educational opportunity); Harrington v. City of 

Attleboro, No. 15–CV–12769–DJC, 2018 WL 475000, 

at *6–7 (D. Mass. Jan. 17, 2018) (describing ‘‘‘widespread peer harassment’ and physical assault [of a 

lesbian high school student] because of stereotyping 

animus focused on [the student’s] sex, appearance, 

and perceived or actual sexual orientation’’). 

sex’’ in Title VII necessarily includes 

discrimination because of sexual 

orientation, gender identity, and 

transgender status. Bostock v. Clayton 

County, 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1753–54 (2020). 

Since Bostock, at least one Federal 

circuit court of appeal has concluded 

that the plain language of Title IX’s 

prohibition on sex discrimination must 

be read similarly, and the Supreme 

Court has denied review of that 

decision. Grimm v. Gloucester Cnty. 

Sch. Bd., 972 F.3d 586, 616 (4th Cir. 

2020), as amended (Aug. 28, 2020), 

petition for cert. denied, No. 20–1163 

(June 28, 2021). 

On March 26, 2021, the Civil Rights 

Division of the U.S. Department of 

Justice, the agency charged with 

coordination of the implementation and 

enforcement of Title IX by executive 

agencies, issued a memorandum 

concluding that ‘‘the best reading of 

Title IX’s prohibition on discrimination 

‘on the basis of sex’ is that it includes 

discrimination on the basis of gender 

identity and sexual orientation.’’ 2 The 

Civil Rights Division reached this 

conclusion after considering the text of 

Title IX, Bostock and other Supreme 

Court case law, including dissenting 

opinions, and developing jurisprudence 

in this area, including the circuit court 

opinion cited above. The Civil Rights 

Division subsequently updated its Title 

IX Legal Manual to state that the 

Department of Justice interprets Title IX 

to prohibit discrimination based on 

gender identity and sexual orientation.3

In addition, on June 22, 2021, the 

Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. 

Department of Education, the agency 

responsible for that Department’s 

enforcement of Title IX, published a 

notice in the Federal Register clarifying 

that it will enforce Title IX’s prohibition 

on discrimination based on sex to 

include discrimination based on both 

sexual orientation and gender identity.4

The Office for Civil Rights concluded 

that the Supreme Court’s interpretation 

of sex discrimination in Bostock 

properly applies to Title IX based on the 

textual similarity between Title VII and 

Title IX; subsequent case law including 

the Grimm decision cited above, as well 

as cases recognizing the harm that 

students may endure as a result of 

differential treatment based on gender 

identity or sexual orientation; 5 and the 

Civil Rights Division’s memorandum 

discussed above. 

Section 188 of WIOA expressly 

incorporates Title IX’s prohibition on 

sex discrimination. 29 U.S.C. 3248(a)(2) 

(specifying that ‘‘[n]o individual shall 

be excluded from participation in, 

denied the benefits of, subjected to 

discrimination under, or denied 

employment in the administration of or 

in connection with, any such program 

or activity [funded or otherwise 

financially assisted in whole or in part 

under Title I of WIOA] because of . . . 

sex (except as otherwise permitted 

under title IX of the Education 

Amendments of 1972 . . .)’’); see also 

id. 3248(a)(1) (providing that ‘‘programs 

and activities funded or otherwise 

financially assisted in whole or in part 

under [WIOA] are considered to be 

programs and activities receiving 

Federal financial assistance’’ for the 

purpose of applying the prohibition 

against discrimination on the basis of 

sex under Title IX). 

Consistent with the Supreme Court’s 

interpretation of Title VII in Bostock and 

with the case law and interpretations 

discussed above applying the same 

conclusion to Title IX, beginning April 

7, 2022, CRC interprets Section 188’s 

prohibition on discrimination on the 

basis of sex to include discrimination on 

the basis of sexual orientation, as well 

as gender identity and transgender 

status. This interpretation will guide 

CRC in processing complaints and 

conducting investigations and 

compliance reviews, but it does not 

determine the outcome in any particular 

case, which will depend on the specific 

facts and circumstances. Any action 

taken by CRC in a specific case will take 

account of all relevant facts and legal 

requirements, including, where 

applicable, Title IX’s religious 

exemption and other exemptions, which 

are incorporated into Section 188, see 

29 U.S.C. 3248(a)(2), and the Religious 

Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. 

2000bb et seq. 

If you think that you have, or any 

specific class of individuals has, been 

subjected to discrimination under a 

WIOA Title I-financially assisted 

program or activity, you may file a 

complaint within 180 days from the 

date of the alleged violation with either: 

(1) The recipient’s Equal Opportunity

Officer (or the person whom the

recipient has designated for this

purpose) or (2) CRC, via postal mail

addressed to The Director, Civil Rights

Center (CRC), U.S. Department of Labor,

200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room

N–4123, Washington, DC 20210, or

electronically as directed on the CRC

website at https://www.dol.gov/

agencies/oasam/centers-offices/civilrights-center/external/how-to-filecomplaint. The complaint will be

processed in accordance with the

procedures at 29 CFR 38.69–.85. After

investigating the complaint, if the

Director of CRC finds reasonable cause

to believe that the recipient has violated

WIOA Section 188 or its implementing

regulations, the Director is required to

issue an Initial Determination that

includes the opportunity for the

recipient to engage in voluntary

compliance negotiations. 29 CFR

38.87(e).

Martin J. Walsh, 

Secretary, Department of Labor. 

[FR Doc. 2022–07290 Filed 4–6–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket Number USCG–2022–0212] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Anacostia River, 

Washington, DC 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary safety zone for 

certain waters of the Anacostia River. 

The safety zone is needed to protect 

personnel, vessels, and the marine 

environment on these navigable waters 

near Washington, DC on April 16, 2022 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 20323 

(rain date April 17, 2022) from potential 

hazards during a fireworks display 

occurring as a part of the National 

Cherry Blossom Festival. Entry of 

vessels or persons into this zone is 

prohibited unless specifically 

authorized by the Captain of the Port, 

Maryland-National Capital Region or a 

designated representative. 

DATES: This rule is effective from 7:30 

p.m. on April 16, 2022, through 9:30 

p.m. on April 17, 2022. This rule will 

be enforced from 7:30 p.m. through 9:30 

p.m. on April 16, 2022, or those same 

hours on April 17, 2022, in the case of 

inclement weather on April 16, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: To view documents 

mentioned in this preamble as being 

available in the docket, go to https://

www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2022– 

0212 in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click 

‘‘SEARCH.’’ Next, in the Document 

Type column, select ‘‘Supporting & 

Related Material.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this rule, call 

or email MST3 Melissa Kelly, Sector 

Maryland-National Capital Region 

Waterways Management Division, U.S. 

Coast Guard; telephone 410–576–2596, 

email Melissa.C.Kelly@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COTP Captain of the Port 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Background Information and 

Regulatory History 

The Coast Guard is issuing this 

temporary rule without prior notice and 

opportunity to comment pursuant to 

authority under section 4(a) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 

U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision 

authorizes an agency to issue a rule 

without prior notice and opportunity to 

comment when the agency for good 

cause finds that those procedures are 

‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that 

good cause exists for not publishing a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

with respect to this rule because it is 

impracticable and contrary to the public 

interest to do so. We must establish this 

safety zone by April 16, 2022, to protect 

the public from hazards associated with 

the fireworks event. Hazards include 

explosive materials, dangerous 

projectiles, and falling debris. The 

fireworks fall out zone extends across 

the navigable channel. 

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast 

Guard finds that good cause exists for 

making this rule effective less than 30 

days after publication in the Federal 

Register. Delaying the effective date of 

this rule would be impracticable and 

contrary to the public interest because 

immediate action is needed to respond 

to the potential safety hazards 

associated with the fireworks display. 

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule 

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule 

under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 

(previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The 

Captain of the Port, Maryland-National 

Capital Region (COTP) has determined 

that potential hazards associated with 

the fireworks to be used in the April 16, 

2022 display will be a safety concern for 

anyone near the fireworks barge. This 

rule is needed to protect personnel, 

vessels, and the marine environment in 

the navigable waters within the safety 

zone before, during, and after the 

scheduled event. 

IV. Discussion of the Rule 

This rule establishes a temporary 

safety zone from 7:30 p.m. on April 16, 

2022, through 9:30 p.m. on April 17, 

2022. The rule will be enforced from 

7:30 p.m. through 9:30 p.m. on April 16, 

2022, or in the event of inclement 

weather on April 16, those same hours 

on April 17, 2022. The safety zone 

covers all navigable waters of the 

Anacostia River within 500 feet of the 

fireworks barge in approximate position 

latitude 38°52′15.39′′ N, longitude 

77°00′09.39′′ W, located near Nationals 

Park in Washington, DC. The size of the 

zone and duration of the rule are 

intended to protect personnel, vessels, 

and the marine environment in these 

navigable waters before, during, and 

after the scheduled fireworks display. 

No vessel or person will be permitted to 

enter the safety zone without obtaining 

permission from the COTP or a 

designated representative. 

V. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this 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 rule has not been designated a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, 

this rule has not been reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). 

This regulatory action determination 

is based on the size, duration, and timeof-day of the safety zone, which will 

impact a small designated area of the 

Anacostia River for no more than 4 

enforcement-hours during evening 

hours when vessel traffic is normally 

low. Moreover, the Coast Guard will 

issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via 

VHF–FM marine channel 16 about the 

zone. 

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 rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

While some owners or operators of 

vessels intending to transit the safety 

zone may be small entities, for the 

reasons stated in section V.A above, this 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on any vessel owner 

or operator. 

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 rule. If the 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. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

who enforce, or otherwise determine 

compliance with, Federal regulations to 

the Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– 

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The 

Coast Guard will not retaliate against 

small entities that question or complain 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
20324 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

about this rule or any policy or action 

of the Coast Guard. 

C. Collection of Information 

This rule will 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 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 rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does 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. 

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 rule 

will not result in such an expenditure, 

we do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

F. Environment 

We have analyzed this 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 

determined 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 rule involves a safety 

zone that will be enforced for 3 hours 

that will prohibit entry within a portion 

of the Anacostia River. It is categorically 

excluded from further review under 

paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 

1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023–01– 

001–01, Rev. 1. A 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. 

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. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 

1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.2. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T05–0212 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T05–0212 Safety Zone; Anacostia 

River, Washington, DC. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: All navigable waters of the 

Anacostia River within 500 feet of the 

fireworks barge in approximate position 

latitude 38°52′15.39′′ N, longitude 

77°00′09.39′′ W located near Nationals 

Park, in Washington, DC. These 

coordinates are based on datum NAD 

83. 

(b) Definitions. As used in this 

section— 

Captain of the Port (COTP) means the 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector 

Maryland-National Capital Region. 

Designated representative means any 

Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or 

petty officer who has been authorized 

by the Captain of the Port MarylandNational Capital Region to assist in 

enforcing the safety zone described in 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general 

safety zone regulations in subpart C of 

this part, you may not enter the safety 

zone described in paragraph (a) of this 

section unless authorized by the COTP 

or the COTP’s designated representative. 

(2) To seek permission to enter, 

contact the COTP or the COTP’s 

representative by telephone at 410–576– 

2693 or on Marine Band Radio VHF–FM 

channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast 

Guard vessels enforcing this section can 

be contacted on Marine Band Radio 

VHF–FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). 

Those in the safety zone must comply 

with all lawful orders or directions 

given to them by the COTP or the 

COTP’s designated representative. 

(d) Enforcement officials. The U.S. 

Coast Guard may be assisted in the 

patrol and enforcement of the safety 

zone by Federal, State, and local 

agencies. 

(e) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 

p.m. on April 16, 2022, or in the event 

of inclement weather, from 7:30 p.m. 

through 9:30 p.m. on April 17, 2022. 

Dated: April 1, 2022. 

David E. O’Connell, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Maryland-National Capital Region. 

[FR Doc. 2022–07403 Filed 4–6–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2021–0411; FRL–9547–02– 

R5] 

Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Bulk 

Silos PM10 FESOP Update 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a sitespecific revision to the Minnesota State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for 

particulate matter less than 10 microns 

(PM10) for the portland cement 

distribution terminal owned and 

operated by Bulk Silos, LLC (Bulk 

Silos), formerly known as Lafarge North 

America Corporation on Childs Road 

Terminal (Lafarge-Childs Road 

Terminal), located in Saint Paul, 

Ramsey County, Minnesota. In its June 

16, 2021, submittal, the Minnesota 

Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) 

requested that EPA approve certain 

conditions contained in Bulk Silos’ 

federally enforceable state operating 

permit (FESOP) into the Minnesota PM 

SIP. The request is approvable because 

it satisfies the requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA). MPCA’s submission 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES