Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 130 / Friday, July 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules 40759 

(2) If there is any looseness, corrosion, 

cracking, or damage, replace the hinge before 

further flight. 

(h) Special Flight Permit 

Special flight permits are prohibited. 

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, International Validation 

Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve 

AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In 

accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your 

request to your principal inspector or local 

Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the certification office, 

send it to the attention of the person 

identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD and 

email to: 9-AVS-AIR-730-AMOC@faa.gov. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(j) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact John DeLuca, Aviation Safety 

Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft 

Section, International Validation Branch, 

FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, 

Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (516) 228–7369; 

email: john.p.deluca@faa.gov. 

(2) Refer to European Union Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021–0267, dated 

November 24, 2021, for more information. 

You may view the EASA AD at https://

www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA– 

2022–0813. 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Vulcanair S.p.A., Fulvio 

Oloferni, via Giovanni Pascoli, 7, 80026 

Naples, Italy; phone: +39 081 5918 135; 

email: airworthiness@vulcanair.com; website: 

https://www.vulcanair.com. You may review 

this referenced service information at the 

FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, 

Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, 

Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on 

the availability of this material at the FAA, 

call (817) 222–5110. 

Issued on June 30, 2022. 

Christina Underwood, 

Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness 

Division, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14428 Filed 7–7–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–C 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2022–0531; FRL–9976–01– 

R7] 

Air Plan Disapproval; Missouri; Control 

of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to 

disapprove revisions to the Missouri 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP08JY22.003</GPH>
40760 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 130 / Friday, July 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

1See 71 FR 12623 (March 13, 2006), 73 FR 35071 

(June 20, 2008), and 78 FR 69995 (November 22, 

2013). 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submitted by Missouri on March 7, 

2019. In its submission, Missouri 

requested rescinding a regulation 

addressing sulfur compounds from the 

SIP and replacing it with a new 

regulation that establishes requirements 

for units emitting sulfur dioxide (SO2). 

The EPA is proposing to disapprove the 

SIP revision because the state has not 

demonstrated that the removal of SO2

emission limits for the Evergy-Hawthorn 

(Hawthorn, formerly Kansas City Power 

& Light-Hawthorn) and Ameren Labadie 

(Labadie) power plants from the SIP 

would not interfere with National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress (RFP), or any other applicable 

requirement of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

as required under CAA section 110(l). 

This disapproval action is being taken 

under the CAA to maintain the 

stringency of the SIP and preserve air 

quality. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 8, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2022–0531 to https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket ID No. for this 

rulemaking. Comments received will be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on sending 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

‘‘Written Comments’’ heading of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wendy Vit, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality 

Planning Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; 

telephone number: (913) 551–7697; 

email address: vit.wendy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Written Comments 

II. What is being addressed in this document? 

A. Hawthorn SO2 Emission Limit 

B. Labadie SO2 Emission Limit 

III. Have the requirements for approval of a 

SIP revision been met? 

IV. What action is the EPA proposing to take? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Written Comments 

Submit your comments, identified by 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2022– 

0531, at https://www.regulations.gov. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

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, 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. 

II. What is being addressed in this 

document? 

Missouri revised title 10, division 10 

of the code of state regulations (CSR) by 

rescinding 10 CSR 10–6.260 

‘‘Restriction of Emission of Sulfur 

Compounds’’ and replacing it with a 

new regulation, 10 CSR 10–6.261 

‘‘Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions.’’ 

10 CSR 10–6.260 was originally 

approved into the SIP at 40 CFR 

52.1320(c) in 1998 (63 FR 45727, August 

27, 1998) and has been revised several 

times.1 10 CSR 10–6.261 has not been 

approved into the SIP. On March 7, 

2019, the state submitted a request to 

revise the SIP by removing 10 CSR 10– 

6.260 and replacing it with 10 CSR 10– 

6.261 (effective date March 30, 2019). 

Missouri’s analysis of the rescission and 

replacement can be found in the 

technical support document (TSD) 

submitted to the EPA on May 4, 2022 

and included in this docket. 

In order for the EPA to fully approve 

a SIP revision, the state must 

demonstrate that the SIP revision meets 

the requirements of CAA section 110(l), 

42 U.S.C. 7410(l). Under CAA section 

110(l), the EPA may not approve a SIP 

revision that would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

NAAQS attainment and RFP, or any 

other applicable requirement of the 

CAA. The EPA interprets section 110(l) 

such that states have two main options 

to make this noninterference 

demonstration. First, the state could 

demonstrate that emissions reductions 

removed from the SIP are replaced with 

new control measures that achieve 

equivalent or greater emissions 

reductions. Thus, the SIP revision will 

not interfere with the area’s ability to 

continue to attain or maintain the 

affected NAAQS or other CAA 

requirements. The EPA further 

interprets section 110(l) as requiring 

such substitute measures to be 

quantifiable, permanent, and 

enforceable, among other 

considerations. For section 110(l) 

purposes, ‘‘permanent’’ means the state 

cannot modify or remove the substitute 

measure without EPA review and 

approval. Second, the state could 

conduct air quality modeling or develop 

an attainment or maintenance 

demonstration based on EPA’s most 

recent technical guidance to show that, 

even without the control measure or 

with the control measure in its modified 

form, the area (as well as interstate and 

intrastate areas downwind) can 

continue to attain and maintain the 

affected NAAQS. 

As discussed in detail in its TSD, 

Missouri contends that there are 

substitute measures of comparable or 

greater stringency to the Hawthorn and 

Labadie SO2 limits, and therefore argues 

that removal of these emission limits 

from the SIP would satisfy CAA section 

110(l) requirements without the need for 

an air quality analysis showing that 

removing the measures will not interfere 

with NAAQS attainment or other 

applicable requirements. 

We disagree with Missouri’s analysis 

and rationale for removing the 

Hawthorn and Labadie SO2 emission 

limits from the SIP. The substitute SO2

emission limit for Hawthorn is 

contained in a Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) permit that is not 

approved in the SIP and could be later 

modified without requiring EPA 

approval, and therefore the substitute 

measure is not considered permanent. 

For Labadie, the substitute SO2 emission 

limit is not as stringent as the limit 

currently in the SIP-approved 10 CSR 

10–6.260, nor does it result in surplus 

emission reductions. In addition, 

Missouri has not provided an air quality 

analysis demonstrating the revisions 

related to the Labadie SO2 emission 

limits in the SIP will not interfere with 

NAAQS attainment or other applicable 

requirements. For these reasons we are 

proposing to disapprove the rescission 

of 10 CSR 10–6.260 and replacement 

with 10 CSR 10–6.261 in the SIP. 

This proposed disapproval action, if 

finalized, would maintain 10 CSR 10– 

6.260 requirements at 40 CFR 52.1320(c) 

as federally approved SIP obligations. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 130 / Friday, July 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules 40761 

2Labadie units 1 and 2 each have a rated 

maximum heat input capacity of 6,183 MMBtu/hr. 

Labadie units 3 and 4 each have a rated maximum 

heat input capacity of 6,107 MMBtu/hr. 

The EPA’s rationale for disapproving 

removal of the Hawthorn and Labadie 

SO2 emission limits from the SIP is 

further discussed in the sections below. 

A. Hawthorn SO2 Emission Limit 

Table 1 of 10 CSR 10–6.260 in the SIP 

includes a 30-day rolling average SO2

emission limit of 0.12 pounds/million 

British thermal units (lb/MMBtu) for the 

Hawthorn plant. The footnote to Table 

1 in 10 CSR 10–6.260 states: ‘‘The SO2

emission rate comes from the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

permit for Unit 5A and is implemented 

in accordance with the terms of the 

permit.’’ The referenced permit for 

Hawthorn is Construction Permit 

Number 888 issued by the Kansas City 

Health Department in August of 1999 

and amended in 2001 after the 

reconstruction of the unit 5 boiler 

(which was renamed unit 5A). The 

permit contains the 30-day rolling 

average SO2 emission limit of 0.12 lb/ 

MMBtu referenced in Table 1 of 10 CSR 

10–6.260, and it stipulates that the 

facility must achieve the limit by 

utilizing a dry flue gas desulfurization 

system and low-sulfur coal. This permit 

has not changed since 2001 when the 

reconstruction of unit 5 was completed, 

and the SO2 limit has also been part of 

the facility’s Title V operating permit 

since that time. 

Missouri’s rationale for removing the 

0.12 lb/MMBtu SO2 limit from the SIP 

is based on using the equivalent SO2

emission limit in Hawthorn’s PSD 

permit as a substitute measure. Missouri 

contends that removal of the 0.12 lb/ 

MMBtu SO2 limit from the SIP satisfies 

CAA section 110(l) because the same 

limit remains in place through 

Hawthorn’s PSD permit. Missouri 

further states that any relaxation of the 

30-day rolling average SO2 emission 

limit in the PSD permit would subject 

the facility to PSD permitting 

requirements. 

EPA disagrees with Missouri’s 

assessment because it relies on a 

substitute measure from Hawthorn’s 

PSD permit that is not SIP-approved. 

Although the PSD permit is federally 

enforceable, it is not considered 

permanent because it is not contained in 

the Missouri SIP and could be modified 

without requiring EPA approval. While 

the EPA can provide comments on PSD 

permits during the state’s public notice 

period, Missouri can issue or modify 

PSD permits that are not in the SIP 

without EPA approval pursuant to the 

state’s federally approved permitting 

program. Therefore, because substitute 

measures must be quantifiable, 

permanent, and enforceable to be used 

for 110(l) analysis purposes, EPA’s 

approval of the removal of a SIPapproved limit based on permits that are 

not SIP-approved would not be 

consistent with CAA section 110(l). 

B. Labadie SO2 Emission Limit 

The Labadie SO2 emission limit found 

at 10 CSR 10–6.260 (3)(C)3.A.(II) in the 

SIP is a daily average of 4.8 lb/MMBtu, 

which applies to each of Labadie’s four 

boilers. In 2015, the state entered into a 

Consent Agreement with the operating 

entity to limit SO2 emissions at Labadie. 

The Consent Agreement includes a 

facility-wide SO2 emission limit of 

40,837 pounds per hour (lb/hr) for 

Labadie. As stated in Missouri’s TSD 

included in this docket, the purpose of 

the Consent Agreement was to 

strengthen the SIP related to attainment 

in the Jefferson County, Missouri 

nonattainment area for the 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS. In December 2020, the 

state amended the 2015 Consent 

Agreement with an addendum to clarify 

that all four of Labadie’s units are 

covered under the facility-wide SO2

limit and incorporate the enforceable 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements associated with 

the facility-wide limit. The EPA 

approved the Consent Agreement 

including the limits for Labadie, as 

amended, into the SIP at 40 CFR 

52.1320(d) on January 28, 2022 (87 FR 

4508). 10 CSR 10–6.261 does not 

include any of the limits contained in 

the Consent Agreement. 

Missouri’s rationale for removing the 

4.8 lb/MMBtu SO2 limit from the SIP is 

based on using the already SIPapproved Consent Agreement SO2

emission limit as a substitute measure of 

greater stringency. The state’s analysis 

of the stringency of the Consent 

Agreement facility-wide SO2 limit of 

40,837 lb/hr compared to the 10 CSR 

10–6.260 unit-level SO2 limit of 4.8 lb/ 

MMBtu assumes all four boilers are 

operating at their maximum hourly 

design rate, which is a combined total 

heat input of 24,580 MMBtu/hr.2

Labadie’s maximum hourly SO2

emissions allowed under 10 CSR 10– 

6.260 is calculated by multiplying 4.8 

lb/hour by 24,580 MMBtu/hr, which 

equates to 117,984 lb/hr, nearly three 

times the maximum hourly emissions of 

40,837 lb/hr allowed by the already SIPapproved Consent Agreement. Based on 

these calculations, Missouri concludes 

that the limit in the already SIPapproved Consent Agreement is more 

restrictive than the limit in 10 CSR 10– 

6.260, and therefore, removal of the 4.8 

lb/MMBtu SO2 emission limit from the 

SIP will not relax requirements for 

Labadie, thus satisfying CAA section 

110(l). 

The EPA agrees that maximum 

allowable facility-wide hourly SO2

emissions for Labadie are lower under 

the already SIP-approved Consent 

Agreement than were under 10 CSR 10– 

6.260 alone. However, our calculations 

show that under a different set of 

assumptions, there are potential 

operating scenarios for Labadie in 

which individual units could operate at 

a rate greater than the current 4.8 lb/ 

MMBtu SO2 SIP limit if it were removed 

from the SIP, while still complying with 

the already SIP-approved Consent 

Agreement limit. In our analysis, we 

converted the Consent Agreement 

facility-wide lb/hr limit to a unit-level 

lb/MMBtu rate for multiple scenarios by 

dividing 40,837 lb/hr by the total heat 

input for all units assumed to be 

operating. An example of a scenario in 

which Labadie could potentially exceed 

the emission rate allowed under the 4.8 

lb/MMBtu SO2 limit but still comply 

with the Consent Agreement limit is 

when a single unit is operating at 100% 

load. A maximum hourly heat input rate 

of 6,107 MMBtu/hr (representative of 

either unit 3 or 4) is used in this 

example. Dividing 40,837 lb/hr by 6,107 

MMBtu/hr equates to an SO2 rate of 6.69 

lb/MMBtu, which is greater than the 4.8 

lb/MMBtu SO2 limit in 10 CSR 10–6.260 

in the current SIP. If this limit were 

removed from the SIP, there would not 

be a permanent and enforceable limit or 

condition in place to prevent Labadie 

from operating a single unit at an SO2

rate higher than 4.8 lb/MMBtu. 

In order for a state to use a previously 

SIP-approved measure (one that is 

already obtaining emissions reductions) 

as a substitute measure to satisfy the 

requirements of CAA section 110(l), the 

emissions reductions must be surplus, 

meaning they cannot otherwise be relied 

on for attainment/maintenance or Rate 

of Progress/Reasonable Further Progress 

requirements. The area should have an 

approved attainment/maintenance 

demonstration in order to ascertain that 

the emissions reductions from the 

existing SIP-approved measure are 

indeed surplus. As Missouri states in 

the TSD included in this docket, the 

purpose of the Consent Agreement was 

to strengthen the SIP related to 

attainment in the Jefferson County, 

Missouri nonattainment area for the 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. When the 

Jefferson County, Missouri area was 

redesignated to attainment for the 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS, the Consent 

Agreement was approved into the SIP as 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
40762 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 130 / Friday, July 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

3The EPA’s obligation under CAA section 

110(c)(1) to issue a FIP following a SIP disapproval 

is not limited to ‘‘required’’ plan submissions. 

However, the EPA can avoid promulgating a FIP if 

the Agency finds that there is no ‘‘deficiency’’ in 

the SIP for a FIP to correct. Association of Irritated 

Residents vs. United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, 632 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2011). 

part of the maintenance plan for the area 

(87 FR 4508, January 28, 2022). The 

Labadie SO2 emission limit in the 

Consent Agreement is not surplus and 

therefore cannot be relied on as a 

substitute measure to meet the 

requirements of section 110(l). 

The EPA’s approval of the removal of 

the 4.8 lbs/MMBtu SO2 limit from the 

SIP would not be consistent with CAA 

section 110(l) because the substitute SO2

limit from the already SIP-approved 

Consent Agreement is not as stringent as 

the SIP’s 4.8 lb/MMBtu limit in all 

situations, nor is it surplus. Moreover, 

Missouri has not demonstrated that this 

change in the SIP would be protective 

of all NAAQS. 

III. Have the requirements for approval 

of a SIP revision been met? 

As explained above, because EPA’s 

approval of the revision would not be 

consistent with CAA section 110(l), we 

are proposing to disapprove the 

submission. However, the state 

submission has met the public notice 

requirements for SIP submissions in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The 

submission also satisfied the 

completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix V. The state provided public 

notice of the revisions from August 1, 

2018, to October 4, 2018, and held a 

public hearing on September 27, 2018. 

The state received and addressed four 

comments from three entities, which 

included the EPA. The state did not 

make changes to the rule as a result of 

comments received prior to submitting 

to the EPA. 

IV. What action is the EPA proposing to 

take? 

The EPA is proposing to disapprove a 

SIP submission from Missouri that 

would rescind 10 CSR 10–6.260 

‘‘Restriction of Emission of Sulfur 

Compounds’’ and replace it with 10 CSR 

10–6.261 ‘‘Control of Sulfur Dioxide 

Emissions.’’ By disapproving these 

revisions, 10 CSR 10–6.260 will be 

retained in the SIP, along with the 

already SIP-approved Consent 

Agreement. The EPA has determined 

that Missouri’s proposed SIP revisions 

do not meet the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act because the revisions 

would remove permanent and 

enforceable emission limits, thereby 

relaxing the stringency of the SIP. 

Furthermore, Missouri has not shown 

that the proposed SIP revisions would 

not have an adverse impact on air 

quality. 

Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final 

disapproval of a submittal that 

addresses a requirement of part D, title 

I of the CAA (CAA sections 171–193) or 

is required in response to a finding of 

substantial inadequacy as described in 

CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP Call) starts a 

sanctions clock. The Missouri SIP 

submission that we propose to 

disapprove was not submitted to meet 

either of these requirements. Therefore, 

any action we take to finalize this 

proposed disapproval will not trigger 

mandatory sanctions under CAA section 

179. In addition, CAA section 110(c)(1) 

provides that EPA must promulgate a 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 

within two years after either finding that 

a State has failed to make a required 

submission or disapproving a SIP 

submission in whole or in part, unless 

EPA approves a SIP revision correcting 

the deficiencies within that two-year 

period. With respect to our proposed 

disapproval of Missouri’s SIP 

submission, however, we propose to 

conclude that any FIP obligation 

resulting from finalization of the 

proposed disapproval would be satisfied 

by our determination that there is no 

deficiency in the SIP to correct.3

Specifically, the limits discussed in this 

proposed rulemaking would remain in 

the SIP and remain federally 

enforceable. 

We are soliciting comments on this 

proposed action. Final rulemaking will 

occur after consideration of any 

comments. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This proposed action does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the PRA because it does not contain any 

information collection activities. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action merely 

proposes to disapprove a SIP 

submission as not meeting the CAA. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects 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. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. This action does not apply 

on any Indian reservation land, any 

other area where the EPA or an Indian 

tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction, or non-reservation areas of 

Indian country. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it merely proposes to 

disapprove a SIP submission as not 

meeting the CAA. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 130 / Friday, July 8, 2022 / Proposed Rules 40763 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or indigenous 

populations. This action merely 

proposes to disapprove a SIP 

submission as not meeting the CAA. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: June 30, 2022. 

Meghan A. McCollister, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14469 Filed 7–7–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 216 and 300 

[Docket No. 220603–0130] 

RIN 0648–BG11 

Implementation of Provisions of the 

Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated 

Fishing Enforcement Act of 2015 and 

the Ensuring Access to Pacific 

Fisheries Act 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes a rule to 

implement certain provisions of the 

Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated 

Fishing Enforcement Act of 2015 and 

the Ensuring Access to Pacific Fisheries 

Act, and to amend the definition of 

illegal, unreported, or unregulated (IUU) 

fishing in the regulations that 

implement the High Seas Driftnet 

Fishing Moratorium Protection Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 6, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2016–0164, by any of the 

following methods: 

Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and enter 

NOAA–NMFS–2016–0164 in the Search 

box. Click on the ‘‘Comment’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

Mail: Submit written comments to 

Christopher Rogers, Office of 

International Affairs, Trade, and 

Commerce, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 1315 East-West Highway (F/ 

IS5), Silver Spring, MD 20910. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on https://www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter 

‘‘N/A’’ in the required fields if you wish 

to remain anonymous). 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule may be submitted to the Office of 

International Affairs, Trade, and 

Commerce and by submission to 

Information Collection Review (https:// 

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Rogers, Office of 

International Affairs, Trade, and 

Commerce, National Marine Fisheries 

Service (phone: 301–427–8350; or 

email: christopher.rogers@noaa.gov). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This proposed rule would implement 

the Port State Measures Agreement Act 

of 2015 and certain other provisions of 

the Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated 

Fishing Enforcement Act of 2015 (IUU 

Fishing Act), Public Law 114–81 

(November 15, 2015), and would 

implement certain provisions of the 

Ensuring Access to Pacific Fisheries Act 

(Pacific Fisheries Act), Public Law 114– 

327 (December 16, 2016). As explained 

below, these two Acts amended several 

existing statutes. Thus, authority for this 

rulemaking comes from those existing 

statutes, as amended. 

This proposed rule would also amend 

the definition of IUU fishing in 

regulations that implement the High 

Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium 

Protection Act (Moratorium Protection 

Act) (16 U.S.C. 1826d et seq.). Title IV 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management 

Reauthorization Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 

109–479) amended the Moratorium 

Protection Act to direct the Secretary of 

Commerce to promulgate a regulatory 

definition of IUU fishing. See 16 U.S.C. 

1826j(e). 

Statutory Background 

On November 15, 2015, President 

Obama signed into law the IUU Fishing 

Act, which can be found at: https://

www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ81/ 

PLAW-114publ81.pdf, and consists of 

three Titles. Title I amends several 

regional fishery management 

agreements’ implementing statutes to 

harmonize their enforcement provisions 

with those found in the MagnusonStevens Fisheries Conservation and 

Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 

and addresses other administrative 

matters. Title II provides authority to 

implement the Antigua Convention, 

which was negotiated to strengthen and 

replace the 1949 Convention for the 

Establishment of an Inter-American 

Tropical Tuna Commission. Title III 

provides the authority to implement the 

provisions of the Agreement on Port 

State Measures to Prevent, Deter and 

Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and 

Unregulated Fishing (Port State 

Measures Agreement or PSMA) of the 

Food and Agriculture Organization of 

the United Nations. The Port State 

Measures Agreement has been signed 

and ratified by the United States and, as 

of February 2022, joined by 69 other 

Parties, including the European Union 

on behalf of its Member States. 

On December 16, 2016, President 

Obama signed into law the Pacific 

Fisheries Act. This Act provides 

authority to implement the Convention 

on the Conservation and Management of 

High Seas Fisheries Resources in the 

North Pacific Ocean, the Convention on 

the Conservation and Management of 

High Seas Fishery Resources in the 

South Pacific Ocean, and the 

amendments to the Convention on 

Future Multilateral Cooperation in the 

Northwest Atlantic Fisheries. The 

Pacific Fisheries Act also addresses 

other matters, including harmonizing 

amendments to the Moratorium 

Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1826d–k), 

which are detailed below. 

This proposed rule would implement 

only certain provisions of the IUU 

Fishing Act and the Pacific Fisheries 

Act, by: revising the regulatory penalty 

provisions under the Pacific Salmon 

Treaty Act (1985) (16 U.S.C. 3631) and 

the Dolphin Protection Consumer 

Information Act (16 U.S.C. 1385); 

amending the procedures for identifying 

and certifying nations under the 

Moratorium Protection Act; reducing 

the period of validity for vessel permits 

issued under the High Seas Fishing 

Compliance Act (16 U.S.C. 5501 et seq.); 

and expanding the set of information 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1