45936 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 17, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Date Document ADAMS accession No. or Federal 

Register citation 

August 2016 .................................... RG 8.10, ‘‘Operating Philosophy for Maintaining Occupational and 

Public Radiation Exposures As Low As Is Reasonably Achievable,’’ 

Rev. 2.

ML16105A136. 

June 1978 ....................................... RG 8.8, ‘‘Information Relevant to Ensuring that Occupational Radiation Exposures at Nuclear Power Stations Will Be as Low as Is 

Reasonably Achievable,’’ Rev. 3.

ML003739549. 

September 2014 .............................. NUREG–2161, ‘‘Consequence Study of a Beyond-Design-Basis 

Earthquake Affecting the Spent Fuel Pool for a U.S. Mark I Boiling 

Water Reactor’’.

ML14255A365. 

2017 ................................................ UNSCEAR, ‘‘Sources, Effects and Risks of Ionizing Radiation, Annex 

B: Epidemiological studies of cancer risk due to low-dose-rate radiation from environmental sources’’.

N/A. 

1996 ................................................ RG 8.29, ‘‘Instruction Concerning Risks from Occupational Radiation 

Exposure’’ Rev. 1.

ML003739438. 

VI. Conclusion 

The NRC reviewed the petitioners’ 

requests, as well as public comments 

received on the petitions. For the 

reasons cited in this document, the NRC 

is denying the three PRMs, specifically 

PRM–20–28, PRM–20–29, and PRM–20– 

30, in their entirety. Given the current 

state of scientific knowledge, the NRC 

has determined that the LNT model 

continues to be an appropriate basis for 

its radiation protection regulatory 

framework. Thus, the NRC’s current 

radiation protection regulations provide 

for the adequate protection of human 

health and safety, and as such, changes 

to 10 CFR part 20 are not warranted at 

this time. 

Dated: August 11, 2021. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2021–17475 Filed 8–16–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–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: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing 

to amend the anchorage regulations for 

Lockwoods Folly Inlet, NC, and adjacent 

waters, by establishing a new offshore 

anchorage and relocating and amending 

the existing explosives anchorage. The 

purpose of this 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, NC. We invite your 

comments on this proposed rulemaking. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before October 18, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2020–0216 using the Federal 

eRulemaking 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 Marine 

Science Technician Chief (MSTC) 

Joshua O’Rourke, Sector North Carolina, 

U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (910) 772– 

2227, email Joshua.P.Orourke@uscg.mil; 

or Mr. Jerry Barnes, Waterways 

Management Branch, Fifth Coast Guard 

District, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 

(757) 398–6230, email Jerry.R.Barnes@

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 

NM Nautical Miles 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal 

Basis 

On May 8, 2020, the Coast Guard 

published a notice 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, NC, 

and to increase the size and relocate the 

existing Lockwoods Folly Inlet 

explosives anchorage. We received two 

comment letters in response, both 

endorsing a rulemaking to amend the 

anchorage regulations as described. The 

Coast Guard is now moving forward 

with this proposed rulemaking. 

The Cape Fear River supports a 

diverse marine transportation system 

which includes Military Ocean 

Terminal Sunny Point, North Carolina 

State Port of Wilmington, and several oil 

terminals and bulk-handling facilities 

for cement, asphalt products, molasses, 

liquid chemicals, sulfur, fertilizers and 

liquid sugar. Military Ocean Terminal 

Sunny Point is a Department of Defense 

facility that stores and ships 

ammunition, dangerous cargo and 

explosives for United States forces 

worldwide. A federal navigation project 

provides for a channel 44 feet deep from 

the ocean to a point just south of 

Southport, NC, and 42 feet to the Lower 

Anchorage Basin and Turning Basin at 

Wilmington, NC. In support of 

continued port growth and growth in 

both size and volume of vessel traffic, 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is 

considering the need for major channel 

depth, width, and alignment changes. 

These include deepening the existing 

federal navigation channel to the Port of 

Wilmington, extending the ocean 

entrance channel farther offshore, and 

widening channels in the Cape Fear 

River where needed. 

At the same time, the demand for 

offshore wind energy is increasing. 

Plummeting costs, technological 

advancements, increasing demand and 

great economic potential have combined 

to make offshore wind a promising 

avenue for adding to a diversified 

national energy portfolio. In 2018, the 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

(BOEM) developed and sought feedback 

on a Proposed Path Forward for Future 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 17, 2021 / Proposed Rules 45937 

Offshore Renewable Energy Leasing on 

the Atlantic OCS (83 FR 14881, April 6, 

2018). Offshore the Carolinas, BOEM 

has identified several wind energy lease 

and call areas and intends to work with 

the states of North Carolina and South 

Carolina using a regional model to plan 

and analyze these areas for potential 

future offshore wind leases. 

Traditionally, vessels awaiting 

entrance and pilotage to the Cape Fear 

River anchor outside the traffic 

separation scheme west of the sea buoy 

(Cape Fear River Entrance Lighted 

Whistle Buoy CF). The Coast Guard has 

concerns that as wind energy areas are 

developed and electrical export cables 

installed, vessel traffic may be displaced 

or funneled into smaller areas, and areas 

traditionally used for anchoring may be 

impacted or lost. Establishing an 

adequate and dedicated offshore 

anchorage will preserve areas 

traditionally used for anchoring and 

alleviate potential hazardous conditions 

of vessels anchoring in the common 

approaches to the Cape Fear River. 

On January 18, 1969, regulations for 

the Lockwoods Folly Inlet (33 CFR 

110.170) explosives anchorage were 

published (34 FR 839) outlining the area 

as an anchorage reserved for the 

exclusive use of vessels carrying 

explosives. The anchorage is located 

within 3 nautical miles (NM) from shore 

and in water with charted depths 

between 32 and 37 feet. The Coast 

Guard is concerned that the anchorage 

does not meet the current needs of safe 

navigation due to the increased size and 

drafts of vessels that call on Military 

Ocean Terminal Sunny Point and the 

Port of Wilmington, and a better 

location is possible in the interest of 

navigation and public safety. 

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 of Proposed Rule 

This proposed rule would formally 

establish an anchorage ground, 

Anchorage A, approximately 8 NM 

southwest of the Oak Island Light, west 

of the pilot boarding area, in an area 

traditionally used by cargo ships for 

anchoring in the approaches to the Cape 

Fear River, NC. This location is near 

existing traffic lanes and in naturally 

deep water with charted depths between 

40 and 52 feet. This proposed rule also 

includes regulations intended to govern 

anchoring practices and provide the 

Captain of the Port additional controls 

over vessel choosing to anchor offshore. 

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. Anchorage 

B would be approximately 5 NM further 

offshore than the existing anchorage and 

increase separation distances between 

vessels laden with explosives and the 

public. The use of Anchorage B would 

be expanded to include vessels carrying 

or handling dangerous cargo or cargoes 

of a particular hazard in addition to 

vessels carrying explosives; its use 

would be required for vessels carrying 

such cargoes; and vessels anchored with 

such cargoes would be required to 

display a visible red flag or light. The 

specific coordinates for these proposed 

anchorage gounds 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 http://

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. 

Executive Order 13771 directs agencies 

to control regulatory costs through a 

budgeting process. This NPRM has not 

been designated a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action,’’ under Executive 

Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM 

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 5 

NM further offshore increasing 

separation distances between vessels 

laden with explosives and the public, 

and expand its size from approximately 

5 to 7 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 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 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
45938 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 17, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

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 

effects of this 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 

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 

L59 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. 

We encourage you to submit 

comments through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. If your material 

cannot be submitted using https://

www.regulations.gov, call or email the 

person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document for 

alternate instructions. 

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 in response to this 

document, see DHS’s eRulemaking 

System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, 

March 11, 2020). Documents mentioned 

in this NPRM as being available in the 

docket, and public comments, will be in 

our online docket at https://

www.regulations.gov and can be viewed 

by following that website’s instructions. 

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. If you go to the online 

docket and sign up for email alerts, you 

will be notified when comments are 

posted or a final rule is published. 

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: 46 U.S.C. 70006, 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, NC. 

(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 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a)(2) 

Latitude Longitude 

33°47′59.09′′ N 78°17′49.00′′ 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′49.00′′ W 

(b) Definitions. As used in this 

section— 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 17, 2021 / Proposed Rules 45939 

Cargoes of particular hazard means 

‘‘cargo of particular hazard’’ as defined 

in § 126.3 of this chapter. 

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 chapter. 

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 hereby 

defined and established, 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 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 

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: August 2, 2021. 

Laura M. Dickey, 

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

Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2021–17291 Filed 8–16–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2020–0562; FRL–8855–01– 

R1] 

Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; 

Infrastructure State Implementation 

Plan Requirements for the 2015 Ozone 

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 Rhode 

Island. This revision addresses the 

infrastructure requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2015 ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). This proposed action 

includes all elements of these 

infrastructure requirements except for 

portions of the ‘‘Good Neighbor’’ or 

‘‘transport’’ provisions, which will be 

addressed in a future action. The 

infrastructure requirements are designed 

to ensure that the structural components 

of each state’s air quality management 

program are adequate to meet the state’s 

responsibilities under the CAA. This 

action is being taken under the Clean 

Air Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 16, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01– 

OAR–2020–0562 at https://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

simcox.alison@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, the EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

at https://www.regulations.gov or at the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA Region 1 Regional Office, Air and 

Radiation Division, 5 Post Office 

Square—Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA 

requests that, if at all possible, you 

contact the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays and 

facility closures due to COVID–19. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Branch, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square— 

Suite 100, (Mail code 05–2), Boston, MA 

02109—3912, tel. (617) 918–1684, email 

simcox.alison@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background and Purpose 

A. What is the scope of this rulemaking? 

B. What guidance did EPA use to evaluate 

Rhode Island’s infrastructure SIP? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation of Rhode Island’s 

Infrastructure SIP 

A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)—Emission Limits 

and Other Control Measures 

B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)—Ambient Air 

Quality Monitoring/Data System 

C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)—Program for 

Enforcement of Control Measures and for 

Construction or Modification of 

Stationary Sources 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS