Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 41911 

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–2021–0546 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). 

PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON 

NAVIGABLE WATERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 100 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 

1.05–1. 

■ 2. Add § 100.T08–0462 to read as 

follows: 

§ 100.T08–0462 Captain’s Quarters Sailing 

Regatta, Louisville, KY. Ohio River MM 

594.0 to MM 598.0. 

(a) Regulated area. The regulations in 

this section apply to the following area: 

All waters of the Ohio River from MM 

594.0 to MM 598.0, extending the entire 

width of the river. 

(b) Regulations. (1) All nonparticipants are prohibited from 

entering, transiting through, anchoring 

in, or remaining within the regulated 

area described in paragraph (a) of this 

section unless authorized by the Captain 

of the Port Sector Ohio Valley or their 

designated representative. 

(2) To seek permission to enter, 

contact the COTP or the COTP’s 

representative by Sector Ohio Valley 

command center at 502–779–5422. 

Those in the regulated area must 

comply with all lawful orders or 

directions given to them by the COTP or 

the designated representative. 

(3) The COTP will provide notice of 

the regulated area through advanced 

notice via broadcast notice to mariners 

and by on-scene designated 

representatives. 

(c) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced from noon through 5 

p.m. on October 9, 2021 and October 10, 

2021. 

Dated: July 20, 2021. 

A.M. Beach, 

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

Port Sector Ohio Valley. 

[FR Doc. 2021–16573 Filed 8–3–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army, Corps of 

Engineers 

33 CFR Part 328 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 120 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2021–0328; FRL–6027.4–02– 

OW] 

Notice of Public Meetings Regarding 

‘‘Waters of the United States’’; 

Establishment of a Public Docket; 

Request for Recommendations 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, Corps 

of Engineers, Department of Defense; 

and Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) 

ACTION: Notice; announcement of public 

meeting dates and solicitation of preproposal feedback. 

SUMMARY: On June 9, 2021, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

and the Department of the Army 

announced their intent to revise the 

definition of ‘‘waters of the United 

States.’’ This process includes two 

rulemakings: A foundational rule to 

restore longstanding protections, and a 

second rulemaking process that builds 

on that regulatory foundation. The 

forthcoming foundational rule will 

propose to restore the regulations 

defining ‘‘waters of the United States’’ 

that were in place for decades until 

2015, with updates to be consistent with 

relevant Supreme Court decisions. The 

agencies will also pursue a separate, 

second rulemaking process that further 

refines and builds upon that regulatory 

foundation. The agencies intend to 

engage with state and tribal coregulators and the public to inform 

these two rulemakings. The agencies are 

committed to learning from the past 

regulatory approaches—the pre-2015 

regulations and guidance, the 2015 

Clean Water Rule, and the 2020 

Navigable Waters Protection Rule— 

while engaging with stakeholders and 

crafting a refined definition of ‘‘waters 

of the United States.’’ 

This document includes a schedule 

for initial public meetings to hear from 

interested stakeholders on their 

perspectives on defining ‘‘waters of the 

United States’’ under the Clean Water 

Act and how to implement that 

definition as the agencies pursue this 

process. The agencies are also accepting 

written recommendations from 

members of the public and are planning 

further opportunities for engagement. 

These opportunities will include 10 

geographically focused roundtables that 

will provide for broad, transparent, 

regionally focused discussions among a 

full spectrum of stakeholders. 

DATES: Written recommendations must 

be received on or before September 3, 

2021. The agencies will hold public 

meetings on the following dates: August 

18, August 23, August 25, August 26, 

and August 31, 2021. Please refer to the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 

additional information on these 

meetings. 

ADDRESSES: You may send written 

feedback, identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OW–2021–0328, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov/ (our 

preferred method). Follow the online 

instructions for submitting written 

feedback. 

• Email: OW-Docket@epa.gov. 

Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW– 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
41912 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

1 In United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, 

474 U.S. 121 (1985), in a unanimous opinion, the 

Supreme Court deferred to the Corps’ judgment and 

upheld the inclusion of adjacent wetlands in the 

regulatory definition of ‘‘waters of the United 

States.’’ In Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook 

County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 

159 (2001), the Court (in a 5–4 opinion) held that 

the use of ‘‘isolated’’ non-navigable intrastate ponds 

by migratory birds was not by itself a sufficient 

basis for the exercise of Federal regulatory authority 

under the CWA. In Rapanos v. United States, 547 

U.S. 715 (2006), a four-Justice plurality interpreted 

‘‘waters of the United States’’ as covering 

‘‘relatively permanent’’ waters as well as wetlands 

with a ‘‘continuous surface connection’’ to such 

water bodies. Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion 

concluded that a water or wetland must possess a 

‘‘significant nexus’’ to traditional navigable waters 

to be a ‘‘water of the United States.’’ 

2021–0328 in the subject line of the 

message. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OW–2021–0328. Written feedback 

received may be posted without change 

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

including any personal information 

provided. Out of an abundance of 

caution for members of the public and 

our staff, the EPA Docket Center and 

Reading Room are closed to the public, 

with limited exceptions, to reduce the 

risk of transmitting COVID–19. Our 

Docket Center staff will continue to 

provide remote customer service via 

email, phone, and webform. We 

encourage the public to submit written 

feedback via https://

www.regulations.gov/ or email, as there 

may be a delay in processing mail and 

faxes. Hand deliveries and couriers may 

be received by scheduled appointment 

only. For further information on EPA 

Docket Center services and the current 

status, please visit us online at https:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Damaris Christensen, Oceans, Wetlands 

and Communities Division, Office of 

Water (4504–T), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; 

telephone number: (202) 564–2281; 

email address: WOTUS-outreach@

epa.gov, and Stacey Jensen, Office of the 

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil 

Works, Department of the Army, 108 

Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 

20310–0104; telephone number: (703) 

459–6026; email address: 

usarmy.pentagon.hqda-asa-cw.mbx.asacw-reporting@mail.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

‘‘Waters of the United States’’ is a 

threshold term in the Clean Water Act 

that establishes the geographic scope of 

federal jurisdiction under the Act. Many 

Clean Water Act programs, including 

sections 303 (Water Quality Standards 

and Total Maximum Daily Loads), 311 

(oil spill programs), 401 (water quality 

certifications), 402 (pollutant discharge 

permits), and 404 (dredged and fill 

material discharge permits), address 

‘‘navigable waters,’’ defined in the 

statute as ‘‘the waters of the United 

States, including the territorial seas.’’ 

Since the 1970s, the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. 

Department of the Army (‘‘Army,’’ 

collectively ‘‘the agencies’’) have 

defined ‘‘waters of the United States’’ by 

regulation. The Navigable Waters 

Protection Rule (NWPR), the agencies’ 

most recent regulation revising the 

definition of ‘‘waters of the United 

States,’’ was published in the Federal 

Register on April 21, 2020 (85 FR 

22250). The NWPR defines categories of 

waters that are jurisdictional and 

categories that are not jurisdictional. 

Eighty-one parties have filed fifteen 

complaints challenging the NWPR in 

eleven different district courts. 

II. Review of the NWPR 

On January 20, 2021, the President 

signed Executive Order 13990 directing 

federal agencies to review rules issued 

in the prior four years that are or might 

conflict with the policy stated in the 

order. The order provides that ‘‘[i]t is, 

therefore, the policy of my 

Administration to listen to the science; 

to improve public health and protect 

our environment; to ensure access to 

clean air and water; to limit exposure to 

dangerous chemicals and pesticides; to 

hold polluters accountable, including 

those who disproportionately harm 

communities of color and low-income 

communities; to reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions; to bolster resilience to the 

impacts of climate change; to restore 

and expand our national treasures and 

monuments; and to prioritize both 

environmental justice and the creation 

of the well-paying union jobs necessary 

to deliver on these goals.’’ 86 FR 7037, 

section 1 (published January 25, 2021, 

signed January 20, 2021). The order 

‘‘directs all executive departments and 

agencies (agencies) to immediately 

review and, as appropriate and 

consistent with applicable law, take 

action to address the promulgation of 

Federal regulations and other actions 

during the last four years that conflict 

with these important national 

objectives, and to immediately 

commence work to confront the climate 

crisis.’’ Id. at 7037, section 2(a). ‘‘For 

any such actions identified by the 

agencies, the heads of agencies shall, as 

appropriate and consistent with 

applicable law, consider suspending, 

revising, or rescinding the agency 

actions.’’ Id. The order also specifically 

revoked Executive Order 13778 of 

February 28, 2017 (Restoring the Rule of 

Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth 

by Reviewing the ‘‘Waters of the United 

States’’ Rule), which had initiated 

development of the agencies’ two-step 

process to repeal and replace the 2015 

Clean Water Rule, culminating in 

promulgation of the NWPR. 

In conformance with Executive Order 

13990, the agencies reviewed the NWPR 

and have decided to initiate two new 

rulemakings. The agencies considered 

the following factors in making this 

decision, including but not limited to: 

The text of the Clean Water Act; 

Congressional intent and the objective 

of the Clean Water Act; Supreme Court 

precedent; the current and future harms 

to the chemical, physical, and biological 

integrity of the nation’s waters due to 

the NWPR; concerns raised by 

stakeholders about the NWPR, including 

implementation-related issues; the 

principles outlined in the Executive 

Order; and issues raised in ongoing 

litigation challenging the NWPR. EPA 

and the Army have substantial and 

legitimate concerns that the NWPR did 

not appropriately consider the effect of 

the revised definition of ‘‘waters of the 

United States’’ on the integrity of the 

nation’s waters. Notwithstanding these 

concerns and ongoing litigation, the 

agencies will continue to implement the 

NWPR until it is no longer in effect, as 

a result of either a new final rule going 

into effect or by virtue of a court order. 

III. New Rulemakings 

The agencies are initiating two new 

rulemakings. First, the agencies intend 

to propose restoring the longstanding 

Clean Water Act regulations that were in 

place for decades prior to 2015, as 

amended to be consistent with relevant 

Supreme Court decisions.1 The agencies 

then intend to propose a second rule 

that builds on that regulatory 

foundation. During the development of 

both rules, the agencies will listen to 

and engage with states, tribes, and 

interested stakeholders about their 

experiences implementing the NWPR, 

the 2015 Clean Water Rule, and the pre2015 regulatory regime. The agencies’ 

rulemaking process will be guided by 

the following considerations: 

• Ensure the rule will further the 

principal objective of the Act as set forth 

by Congress, which is to ‘‘restore the 

chemical, physical, and biological 

integrity of the Nation’s waters.’’ 33 

U.S.C. 1251. 

• Consider the latest peer-reviewed 

and relevant science. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 41913 

• Prioritize practical implementation 

approaches for state and tribal coregulators. 

• Reflect the experiences of, and 

input received from, landowners, the 

agricultural community, states, tribes, 

local governments, community 

organizations, environmental groups, 

and disadvantaged communities with 

environmental justice concerns. 

IV. Stakeholder Engagement 

To assist the agencies in the 

rulemaking process, the agencies 

welcome feedback that can be provided 

through the open public docket or 

through participation at one of several 

public meetings. This feedback will 

inform the rulemaking process; 

however, the agencies will not be 

responding to individual 

recommendations. Issues that the 

agencies are particularly interested in 

getting feedback on include: 

• Implementation. The agencies seek 

input on co-regulator and stakeholder 

experiences with implementing the 

various regulatory regimes. In 

particular, the agencies would like 

feedback on significant nexus analyses 

under the pre-2015 regulatory regime 

and the 2015 Clean Water Rule, as well 

as the typical year analysis under the 

NWPR. Are there implementation 

successes and challenges in assessing 

specific types of sites? If there are 

challenges, what types of 

implementation assistance would be 

helpful? Are there ways in which these 

assessments could be more efficient? 

Are there tools that have been, or could 

be, developed to assist in determining 

jurisdiction? 

• Regional, State, and Tribal 

interests. The agencies request feedback 

on how or whether states and tribes 

have taken any actions in response to 

changes in the jurisdictional scope of 

‘‘waters of the United States’’ under the 

NWPR. In addition, the agencies request 

recommendations regarding whether 

there are certain waters that could be 

addressed by regionalized approaches. 

The agencies are committed to listening 

to specific tribal interests that should be 

considered in any revised definition. 

The agencies are also seeking input on 

the use and value of the jurisdictional 

category for interstate waters. 

• Science. Consistent with Executive 

Order 13990, the agencies request 

identification of relevant science related 

to how streams, wetlands, lakes, and 

ponds restore and maintain the 

chemical, physical, and biological 

integrity of the nation’s waters, 

including relevant literature that has 

been published since EPA’s 2015 Report 

Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands 

to Downstream Waters: A Review and 

Synthesis of the Scientific Evidence. 

• Environmental justice interests. 

Consistent with Executive Order 13990, 

the agencies request feedback on how to 

better engage to ensure input is received 

from communities with environmental 

justice interests. How does the 

jurisdictional status of waters affect 

communities that are overburdened 

with environmental pollution? How is 

the implementation of NWPR impacting 

low-income communities, and other 

disadvantaged communities? Can the 

jurisdictional status of waters be linked 

to environmental justice concerns, and, 

if so, what is the basis? 

• Climate implications. Consistent 

with Executive Order 13990, the 

agencies request feedback on how 

climate change affects the chemical, 

physical, and biological integrity of the 

nation’s waters. How should the 

agencies account for the effects of a 

changing climate in identifying 

jurisdictional waters? Are there 

particular types of waters that are 

especially important in protecting the 

nation’s waters in the face of a changing 

climate, and, if so, what scientific 

evidence supports these conclusions? 

• The scope of jurisdictional 

tributaries. Multiple rules, judicial 

decisions, and longstanding practice 

protected ephemeral, intermittent, and 

perennial streams that met applicable 

criteria for jurisdiction as tributaries 

that are ‘‘waters of the United States.’’ 

Ephemeral streams were then 

categorically excluded from jurisdiction 

in the NWPR, and some intermittent 

streams and even some perennial 

streams are no longer jurisdictional 

under the NWPR. The agencies seek 

feedback on whether certain 

characteristics, such as indicators of 

channelization; physical indicators such 

as indicators of ordinary high water 

mark; flow regime; flow duration; 

watershed size; landscape position; 

stream network density; or distance 

from a traditional navigable water, 

territorial sea, or interstate water should 

inform determinations about which 

tributaries could be considered 

jurisdictional as a class, and which 

decisions are best left to individual, 

case-specific significant nexus 

determinations similar to the agencies’ 

practice from 2007 through 2015. The 

agencies are particularly interested in 

feedback regarding how to identify 

ephemeral streams that should be 

jurisdictional as tributaries, as they are 

the dominant stream type in the arid 

West and in many headwater regions. 

The agencies are interested in 

understanding the impacts of their 

exclusion from the regulations under 

the Clean Water Act by the NWPR. 

• The scope of jurisdictional ditches. 

Historically, the agencies have 

recognized that ditches that reroute 

otherwise jurisdictional tributaries are 

themselves jurisdictional as tributaries. 

In addition, in practice, many other 

ditches have been considered generally 

not jurisdictional. The 2015 Clean Water 

Rule and later the NWPR, for the first 

time, excluded many ditches explicitly 

in rule language. The agencies solicit 

feedback on whether flow regime, 

physical features, excavation in aquatic 

resources versus uplands, type or use of 

the ditch (e.g., irrigation and drainage), 

biological indicators like presence of 

fish, or other characteristics could 

provide clear and implementable 

distinctions between jurisdictional and 

non-jurisdictional ditches. 

• The scope of adjacency. Each 

regulatory definition of ‘‘waters of the 

United States’’ has taken a different 

approach to determining adjacency for 

purposes of jurisdiction under the Act 

and to the jurisdiction of non-adjacent 

waters: 

a. Wetlands that may have been 

considered adjacent under some but not 

all definitions of ‘‘waters of the United 

States’’ include wetlands behind 

artificial berms, which were considered 

adjacent under the pre-2015 regulatory 

regime and the 2015 Clean Water Rule 

regardless of the presence or absence of 

a hydrologic surface connection, but 

required a surface water connection 

under the NWPR. The pre-2015 

regulatory regime and the 2015 Clean 

Water Rule also included ‘‘neighboring’’ 

wetlands within the definition of 

‘‘adjacent,’’ while the NWPR generally 

did not. 

b. Adjacent lakes and ponds that were 

not jurisdictional as tributaries were 

covered under the other waters category 

in the pre-2015 regulations if they met 

certain criteria. Adjacent lakes and 

ponds were included with adjacent 

wetlands in an adjacent waters category 

in the 2015 Clean Water Rule. Lakes and 

ponds with certain surface water 

connections are jurisdictional under the 

NWPR. 

c. Another category of waters includes 

non-adjacent, intrastate, non-navigable 

waters, such as certain prairie potholes, 

playa lakes, Carolina Bays, and more, 

that are not proximate (reasonably close) 

to jurisdictional waters or lack natural 

tributary connections or ditching to 

connect them to a tributary network. 

These waters are typically nonjurisdictional under the NWPR and, as 

a matter of practice, following Supreme 

Court decisions the agencies did not 

assert jurisdiction over them under the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
41914 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

pre-2015 regulatory regime. These 

waters would have been jurisdictional 

under the 2015 Clean Water Rule where 

they met specific criteria and were 

found to have a significant nexus to 

downstream traditional navigable 

waters, interstate waters, or territorial 

seas. 

The agencies are interested in 

identifying characteristics that could 

allow for clarity, implementability, and/ 

or regionalization in defining adjacency 

and identifying jurisdictional waters, 

including whether there are appropriate 

distances or other factors to limit 

adjacency, whether there are certain 

situations where case-specific 

significant nexus determinations would 

more appropriately determine 

jurisdiction, and whether there are 

certain types of waters with particular 

features or characteristics that could 

provide clear and implementable 

distinctions between jurisdictional and 

non-jurisdictional waters. The agencies 

are also interested in recommendations 

for implementation approaches to 

address any of these types of waters. 

• Exclusions from the definition. The 

agencies request feedback on the 

implementability and clarity of 

exclusions present in the NWPR and 

identified in the 2015 Clean Water Rule 

or the pre-2015 regulations and the 

preambles to those regulations. Was the 

scope of these exclusions appropriate 

under the Clean Water Act, easy to 

understand, and implementable? Are 

the NWPR definitions of prior converted 

cropland and waste treatment systems 

appropriate under the Clean Water Act, 

easy to understand, and implementable? 

Did the exclusions have any benefits or 

harmful impacts? Are there regional 

differences with these features and/or 

systems that should be considered? 

V. Public Meetings and Outreach 

The agencies will hold a series of 

public meetings intended to solicit 

recommendations as the agencies 

pursue the development of both rules. 

During these meetings, the agencies 

intend to provide brief background 

information on the rulemaking process 

and stakeholders will have the 

opportunity to provide input, 

particularly with regard to the directives 

in Executive Order 13990 and the topics 

above. The agencies will hold four 

meetings open to all stakeholders and 

an additional session for small entities, 

and reserve a time for an additional 

meeting that will be added in case all 

speaking slots are filled in earlier 

meetings. 

The public meetings will be held as 

web conferences in August 2021, with 

one date reserved in September, if 

needed. Registration instructions can be 

found at the following website: https:// 

www.epa.gov/wotus/public-outreachand-stakeholder-engagement-activities. 

Persons or organizations wishing to 

provide verbal recommendations during 

the meetings will be selected on a firstcome, first-serve basis. Due to the 

expected number of participants, 

individuals will be asked to limit their 

spoken presentation to three minutes. 

Once the speaking slots are filled, 

participants may be placed on a standby 

list to speak or continue to register to 

listen to the recommendations. The 

meetings will be recorded and posted on 

EPA’s website. Supporting materials 

and written feedback from those who do 

not have an opportunity to speak can be 

submitted to the docket as described 

above. The schedule for the ‘‘waters of 

the United States’’ meetings is as 

follows: 

—August 18, 2021, from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. 

Eastern, 

—August 23, 2021, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. 

Eastern, 

—August 25, 2021, from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. 

Eastern, 

—August 26, 2021, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. 

Eastern, and 

—August 31, 2021, from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. 

Eastern. 

The agencies have also reserved 

September 2, 2021, from 2 p.m. to 4 

p.m. Eastern, for an additional meeting 

that will be added in case all speaking 

slots are filled in earlier meetings. 

In addition, the agencies are initiating 

Federalism and tribal consultations for 

the proposed rulemaking to restore the 

regulations defining ‘‘waters of the 

United States’’ in place from 1986 until 

2015, amended to be consistent with 

relevant Supreme Court decisions. The 

agencies also intend to host a series of 

dialogues with state and tribal 

coregulators this fall to discuss both 

rulemakings. 

Finally, the rulemaking efforts of the 

past decade have highlighted the 

regional variability of water resources 

and the importance of close engagement 

with stakeholders to understand the 

specifics of how they experience 

regulation under varying definitions of 

waters of the United States. As an 

agency, we will honor our commitment 

to listen and learn from diverse 

perspectives by hosting 10 roundtables 

representing different regions of the 

country and encouraging broad 

participation that reflects diverse views. 

These 10 regional roundtables will 

allow a full spectrum of stakeholders to 

provide their perspectives about what 

has worked and what has not worked 

within their geographic areas in 

previous regulatory efforts with each 

other and in the presence of EPA and 

Army leadership. These roundtables 

will highlight similarities and 

differences across geographic regions, 

while emphasizing particular water 

resources that are characteristic of or 

unique to each region, and providing 

site-specific feedback about 

implementation. Information on the 

roundtables will be posted on the EPA 

website above. 

Vance F. Stewart III, 

Acting Principal Deputy, Office of the 

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil 

Works, Department of the Army. 

John Goodin, 

Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and 

Watersheds, Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2021–16643 Filed 8–3–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2020–0445; FRL–8779–01– 

R4] 

Air Plan Approval; SC; Revisions to 

Definitions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of South 

Carolina, through the South Carolina 

Department of Health and 

Environmental Control (SC DHEC or 

Department), on April 24, 2020. The SIP 

revision updates the definition of ‘‘Spec. 

Oil (Specification Oil)’’ and makes 

minor updates to formatting and 

numbering. EPA is proposing to approve 

this revision pursuant to the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or Act) and implementing 

federal regulations. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 3, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2020–0445 at 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1