Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 178 / Friday, September 17, 2021 / Proposed Rules 51845 

with all cells, links, and formulas intact 

when a natural gas pipeline files for a 

change in rates or charges. 

DATES: Comments due 5:00 p.m. Eastern 

time on September 29, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: The Commission strongly 

encourages electronic filings of 

comments in lieu of paper using the 

‘‘eFile’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov. In 

lieu of electronic filing, you may submit 

a paper copy. Submissions sent via the 

U.S. Postal Service must be addressed 

to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, 

DC 20426. Submissions sent via any 

other carrier must be addressed to: 

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 

Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 

20852. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey Sherman, Office of the General 

Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–8633, 

Jeffrey.Sherman@ferc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Any 

person desiring to intervene or to 

protest this filing must file in 

accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). 

Protests will be considered by the 

Commission in determining the 

appropriate action to be taken, but will 

not serve to make protestants parties to 

the proceeding. Any person wishing to 

become a party must file a notice of 

intervention or motion to intervene, as 

appropriate. Such notices, motions, or 

protests must be filed on or before the 

comment date. Anyone filing a motion 

to intervene or protest must serve a copy 

of that document on Petitioners. In 

addition to publishing the full text of 

this document in the Federal Register, 

the Commission provides all interested 

persons an opportunity to view and/or 

print the contents of this document via 

the internet through the Commission’s 

Home Page (https://www.ferc.gov) using 

the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the docket 

number excluding the last three digits in 

the docket number field to access the 

document. At this time, the Commission 

has suspended access to Commission’s 

Public Reference Room, due to the 

proclamation declaring a National 

Emergency concerning the Novel 

Coronavirus Disease (COVID–19), issued 

by the President on March 13, 2020. For 

assistance, contact FERC at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or call 

toll-free, (886) 208–3676 or TYY, (202) 

502–8659. 

Issued: September 8, 2021. 

Debbie-Anne A. Reese, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–19771 Filed 9–16–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket Number USCG–2021–0661] 

RIN 1625–AA11 

Regulated Navigation Area; Offshore, 

Cape Canaveral, Florida 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing 

to replace the existing safety zone in 

Captain of the Port Zone Jacksonville, 

Offshore Cape Canaveral, Florida with a 

regulated navigation area (RNA). The 

existing safety zone is composed of four 

large regulated areas and was 

established in 2009 with the intent of 

protecting vessels from risks posed from 

rockets launching from facilities on 

Cape Canaveral. Changes in the type 

and size of launch vehicles, rocket 

component recovery methods, and the 

increased frequency of launches pose 

variable risks to marine traffic and 

require a more flexible regulatory tool. 

The proposed RNA would encompass 

all waters within typical rocket flight 

trajectories originating from launch 

complexes on and around Cape 

Canaveral, FL and out to 12 nautical 

miles. 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– 

2021–0661 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 Mr. A. Eugene 

Stratton, Seventh District, Waterways 

Management Branch (DPW), U.S. Coast 

Guard; telephone 305–415–6750, email 

a.eugene.stratton@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal 

Basis 

The Coast Guard is proposing to 

replace the existing safety zone in 33 

CFR 165.775 titled ‘‘Safety Zone; 

Captain of the Port Zone Jacksonville; 

Offshore Cape Canaveral, Florida’’ with 

a regulated navigation area (RNA). The 

existing safety zone is composed of four 

large regulated areas and was 

established in 2009 with the intent of 

protecting marine traffic from the 

hazards associated with the launching 

of space vehicles, to expedite 

notification to the public, and to reduce 

the administrative workload of the Coast 

Guard. Changes in the type and size of 

launch vehicles, rocket component 

recovery methods, and the increased 

frequency of launches pose variable 

risks to marine traffic and require a 

more flexible regulatory tool. The 

proposed RNA would encompass all 

waters within typical rocket flight 

trajectories originating from launch 

complexes on and around Cape 

Canaveral, FL and out to 12 nautical 

miles. We invite your comments on this 

proposed rulemaking. 

The Coast Guard proposes this 

rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 

70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 

6.04–6, and 160.5, and Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 

00170.1, Revision No. 01.2. 

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The Seventh Coast Guard District 

Commander is proposing to replace the 

existing Offshore Cape Canaveral Safety 

Zone in 33 CFR 165.775, with a RNA. 

Prior to the safety zone that was 

established in 2009, the Captain of the 

Port (COTP) Jacksonville issued 

temporary federal regulations for each 

rocket launch from Cape Canaveral Air 

Force Station, now called Cape 

Canaveral Space Force Station. At the 

time, 12–15 launches a year was typical. 

The four ‘‘zones’’ were based on 

historical and projected launch azimuth 

data and designed in collaboration with 

the U.S. Air Force, 45th Space Wing 

Range Operations and Safety 

Departments and U.S. Coast Guard 

Space Transportation Systems program 

office in Port Canaveral, FL. 

Contemporary flight analyses models 

and risk assessments are more advanced 

and require a far smaller hazard area for 

typical launches than the four ‘‘zones’’ 

51846 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 178 / Friday, September 17, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

established in the Offshore Cape 

Canaveral Safety Zone of 2009. For most 

launches originating from Cape 

Canaveral, the existing safety zones are 

far too large and enforcement of them 

may unnecessarily restrict vessel traffic. 

Rocket launch activity has doubled 

since 2009. In 2020 the 45th Space Wing 

(now designated as Space Launch Delta 

45 under the U.S. Space Force) 

launched 39 missions which required 

20 activations of the 2009 safety zone. 

The type, configuration, and mission 

profile of contemporary governmental 

and commercial rockets adds additional 

variability to risk assessments and 

requires a more adaptable regulatory 

tool. 

A Safety Zone, as defined in 33 CFR 

165.20, is intended to limit access to a 

hazardous area to authorized persons, 

vehicles, or vessels. Given the rapidly 

changing nature of space launch 

operations in the area, an RNA, as 

defined in 33 CFR 165.11, which allows 

the control of vessel traffic with more 

flexibility and expediency, is the more 

appropriate regulatory tool. 

This RNA is not meant to replace, 

alter, or conflict with Coast Guard 

security zones as described in 33 CFR 

165.701, Vicinity, Kennedy Space 

Center, Merritt Island, FL; or 33 CFR 

165.705, Port Canaveral Harbor, Cape 

Canaveral Air Force Station, FL. The 

regulatory text we are proposing appears 

at the end of this document. 

We propose the following area to be 

a RNA: All waters offshore Cape 

Canaveral from surface to bottom, 

encompassed by a line connecting the 

following points beginning with Point 1 

at 28°48′54′′ N, 80°28′40′′ W; thence 

southwest to Point 2 at 28°43′20′′ N, 

80°41′ W; thence south along the 

shoreline to Point 3 at 28°26′40′′ N, 

80°32′49′′ W; thence continuing south 

offshore to Point 4 at 28°10′ N, 

80°23′20′′ W; thence east Point 5 at 

28°10′ N, 80°21′13′′ W; thence north 

along the 12 nautical mile line back to 

Point 1. Coordinates are in WGS 1984. 

These coordinates are based on the 

furthest north and south trajectories of 

typical rocket launch vehicles 

originating from Cape Canaveral. In 

addition, there are five typical launch 

exclusion areas that cover the majority 

of rocket launches. We list the 

coordinates and locations of the five 

typical launch exclusion areas in the 

regulatory text. 

When the RNA is deemed activated, 

the COTP or a designated representive 

would be able to restrict vessel 

movement including but not limited to 

transiting, anchoring, or mooring within 

this RNA to protect vessels from hazards 

associated with rocket launches. These 

restrictions are temporary in nature and 

would only be enacted and enforced 

prior to and just after a successful 

launch. The COTP would be able to 

activate any single area, a combination 

of areas, or establish ad hoc areas within 

the RNA boundary area as warranted by 

the specific risks posed by individual 

launches. 

The COTP would inform the public of 

the activation or status of the RNA by 

Broadcast Notice to Mariners on VHF– 

FM channel 16, Public Notice of 

Enforcement, on-scene presence, and by 

the display of a yellow ball from a 90- 

foot pole near the shoreline. 

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 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). 

The RNA will operate in a similar 

way to the existing safety zone, but will 

reduce the size of exclusionary areas for 

each typical rocket launch. We expect 

the economic impact of this rule to be 

so minimal that a full regulatory 

evaluation is unnecessary. The RNA 

will only be activated a reasonable time 

before a launch and deactivated once 

the area is no longer hazardous. 

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. 

The total time of the RNA activation 

and thus restriction to the public is 

expected to be approximately one hour 

per launch. Vessels would be able to 

transit around the activated RNA 

locations during these launches. We do 

not anticipate any significant economic 

impact resulting from activation of the 

RNA. 

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 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 178 / Friday, September 17, 2021 / Proposed Rules 51847 

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 the activation of a 

regulated navigation area with 

exclusionary zones smaller than the 

existing safety zones. The activation of 

the RNA is expected to be an hour total. 

Normally such actions are categorically 

excluded from further review under 

paragraph L60a 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–2021–0661 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 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 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. Revise § 165.775 to read as follows: 

§ 165.775 Regulated Navigation Area; 

Launch Area Offshore Cape Canaveral, FL. 

(a) Location. (1) The following area is 

a regulated navigation area (RNA): All 

waters offshore Cape Canaveral from 

surface to bottom, encompassed by a 

line connecting the following points 

beginning with Point 1 at 28°48′54′′ N, 

80°28′40′′ W; thence southwest to Point 

2 at 28°43′20′′ N, 80°41′ W; thence south 

along the shoreline to Point 3 at 

28°26′40′′ N, 80°32′49′′ W; thence 

continuing south offshore to Point 4 at 

28°10′ N, 80°23′20′′ W; thence east Point 

5 at 28°10′ N, 80°21′13′′ W; thence north 

along the 12 nautical mile line back to 

Point 1. Coordinates are in WGS 1984. 

These coordinates are based on the 

furthest north and south trajectories of 

typical rocket launch vehicles 

originating from Cape Canaveral. 

(2) While restrictions may be enforced 

anywhere within the boundaries of the 

RNA, there are five typical launch 

exclusion areas that cover the majority 

of rocket launches. Typical launch 

hazard areas include all navigable 

waters within the following coordinates, 

encompassed by a line starting at Point 

1 connecting the following points: 

(i) Northeast Launch Hazard Area: 

Point 1 ... 28°47′47′′ N 080°27′48′′ W 

Point 2 ... 28°42′18′′ N 080°34′55′′ W 

Point 3 ... 28°39′13′′ N 080°37′49′′ W 

Point 4 ... 28°32′29′′ N 080°33′53′′ W 

Point 5 ... 28°34′00′′ N 080°29′00′′ W 

Point 6 ... 28°39′43′′ N 080°21′57′′ W 

(ii) East Northeast Launch Hazard 

Area: 

Point 1 ... 28°43′53′′ N 080°24′50′′ W 

Point 2 ... 28°36′10′′ N 080°35′20′′ W 

Point 3 ... 28°31′46′′ N 080°33′40′′ W 

Point 4 ... 28°34′42′′ N 080°28′40′′ W 

Point 5 ... 28°40′45′′ N 080°22′28′′ W 

(iii) Large East Launch Hazard Area: 

Point 1 ... 28°40′32′′ N 080°22′21′′ W 

Point 2 ... 28°39′14′′ N 080°37′48′′ W 

Point 3 ... 28°27′00′′ N 080°31′55′′ W 

Point 4 ... 28°27′35′′ N 080°17′48′′ W 

(iv) Small East Launch Hazard Area: 

Point 1 ... 28°38′28′′ N 080°21′24′′ W 

Point 2 ... 28°39′00′′ N 080°31′00′′ W 

Point 3 ... 28°38′00′′ N 080°36′58′′ W 

Point 4 ... 28°32′00′′ N 080°33′45′′ W 

Point 5 ... 28°31′32′′ N 080°18′35′′ W 

(v) Southeast Launch Hazard Area: 

Point 1 ... 28°37′00′′ N 080°29′00′′ W 

Point 2 ... 28°35′48′′ N 080°34′59′′ W 

51848 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 178 / Friday, September 17, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

1Hereinafter, the terms ‘‘North Carolina SIP’’ and 

‘‘SIP’’ refer to the North Carolina regulatory portion 

of the North Carolina SIP (i.e., the portion that 

contains SIP-approved North Carolina regulations). 2The Mecklenburg County, North Carolina 

revision that is dated April 24, 2020, and received 

by EPA on June 19, 2020, is comprised of three 

previous submittals—one dated January 21, 2016; 

one dated October 25, 2017; and one dated January 

14, 2019. 

3EPA notes that the April 24, 2020, submittal was 

received by EPA on June 19, 2020. 

Point 3 ... 28°26′40′′ N 080°32′49′′ W 

Point 4 ... 28°10′00′′ N 080°23′20′′ W 

Point 5 ... 28°10′00′′ N 080°21′13′′ W 

Point 6 ... 28°23′10′′ N 080°18′41′′ W 

(b) Definitions. The following 

definitions apply to this section: 

Designated representative means 

Coast Guard Patrol Commanders 

including Coast Guard coxswains, petty 

officers and other officers operating 

Coast Guard vessels, and federal, state, 

and local officers designated by or 

assisting the Captain of the Port (COTP) 

Jacksonville in the enforcement of 

RNAs, safety zones, and security zones. 

(c) Regulations. (1) The COTP or a 

designated represented may restrict 

vessel movement including but not 

limited to transiting, anchoring, or 

mooring within this RNA to protect 

vessels from hazards associated with 

rocket launches. These restrictions are 

temporary in nature and will only be 

enacted and enforced prior to and just 

after a successful launch. 

(2) The COTP may activate any single 

area, a combination of areas, or establish 

ad hoc areas within the RNA boundary 

area as warranted by the specific risks 

posed by individual launches. 

(d) Notice of activation of RNA. The 

COTP will inform the public of the 

activation or status of the RNA by 

Broadcast Notice to Mariners on VHF– 

FM channel 16, Public Notice of 

Enforcement, on-scene presence, and by 

the display of a yellow ball from a 90- 

foot pole near the shoreline at 

approximately 28°35′00′′ N, 080°34′36′′ 

W and from a 90-foot pole near the 

shoreline at approximately 28°55′18′′ N, 

080°35′00′′ W. Coast Guard assets or 

other Federal, State, or local law 

enforcement assets will be clearly 

identified by lights, markings, or with 

agency insignia. 

(e) Contact information. The COTP 

Jacksonville may be reached by 

telephone at (904) 564–7513. Any onscene Coast Guard or designated 

representative assets may be reached on 

VHF–FM channel 16. 

Dated: September 13, 2021. 

Brendan C. McPherson, 

Rear Admiral, Commander, Seventh Coast 

Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2021–20105 Filed 9–16–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2021–0354; FRL–8958–01– 

R4] 

Air Plan Approval; North Carolina; 

Mecklenburg Air Quality Permit Rules 

Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision to the Mecklenburg County 

portion of the North Carolina SIP, 

hereinafter referred to as the 

Mecklenburg Local Implementation 

Plan (LIP). The revision was submitted 

by the State of North Carolina, through 

the North Carolina Division of Air 

Quality (NCDAQ), on behalf of 

Mecklenburg County Air Quality 

(MCAQ) via a letter dated April 24, 

2020, and was received by EPA on June 

19, 2020. The revision updates several 

Mecklenburg County Air Pollution 

Control Ordinance (MCAPCO) rules 

incorporated into the LIP and adds 

several rules. EPA is proposing to 

approve these changes pursuant to the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 18, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2021–0354 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. 

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. 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, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Evan Adams, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air and 

Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 

Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

The telephone number is (404) 562– 

9009. Mr. Adams can also be reached 

via electronic mail at adams.evan@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Overview 

The Mecklenburg County LIP was 

submitted to EPA on June 14, 1990, and 

EPA approved the plan on May 2, 1991. 

See 56 FR 20140. Mecklenburg County 

is now requesting that EPA approve 

updates and additions to the LIP for, 

among other things, general consistency 

with the North Carolina SIP.1

Mecklenburg County prepared three 

submittals in order to modify the LIP 

and reflect regulatory and 

administrative changes that NCDAQ has 

made to the North Carolina SIP.2 The 

three submittals were submitted to EPA 

as follows: NCDAQ transmitted the 

October 25, 2017, submittal to EPA but 

withdrew it from review through a letter 

dated February 15, 2019. On April 24, 

2020, NCDAQ resubmitted the October 

25, 2017, update to EPA and also 

submitted the January 21, 2016, and 

January 14, 2019, updates. Due to an 

inconsistency with public notice at the 

local level, these submittals were 

withdrawn from EPA through a letter 

dated February 15, 2019. Mecklenburg 

County corrected this error, and NCDAQ 

submitted the updates in a revision 

dated April 24, 2020.3

II. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

The April 24, 2020, revision includes 

updates to and additions of several 

MCAPCO rules. The January 21, 2016, 

changes from MCAQ include updates to 

MCAPCO Rule 1.5214—Commencement 

of Operation; and the January 14, 2019, 

changes from MCAQ include updates to 

MCAPCO Rules 1.5212—Applications; 

1.5213—Action on Application; 

Issuance of Permit; 1.5215—Application 

Processing Schedule; 1.5219—Retention 

of Permit at Permitted Facility; 1.5221—