37822 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 155 / Monday, August 14, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: July 24, 2017. 

Deborah A. Szaro, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New 

England. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart H—Connecticut 

■ 2. Section 52.377 is amended by 

adding paragraph (r) to read as follows: 

§ 52.377 Control strategy: Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(r) Approval. Submittal from the 

Connecticut Department of Energy and 

Environmental Protection dated March 

9, 2017, to address the nonattainment 

new source review requirements for the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 

Greater Connecticut and the New YorkN. New Jersey-Long Island, NY–NJ–CT 

ozone nonattainment areas, as it meets 

the requirements for both the State’s 

marginal and moderate classifications. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17021 Filed 8–11–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0382; FRL–9966–25– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AT15 

Revisions to Procedure 2—Quality 

Assurance Requirements for 

Particulate Matter Continuous 

Emission Monitoring Systems at 

Stationary Sources 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is finalizing revisions to 

Procedure 2 that were proposed in the 

Federal Register on November 21, 2016. 

Procedure 2 includes quality assurance/ 

quality control (QA/QC) procedures for 

particulate matter (PM) continuous 

emission monitoring systems (CEMS) 

used for compliance determination at 

stationary sources. The QA procedures 

specify the minimum requirements 

necessary for the control and assessment 

of the quality of PM CEMS data 

submitted to the EPA and other 

regulatory authorities. This action 

establishes consistent requirements for 

ensuring and assessing the quality of 

PM data measured by CEMS that meet 

initial acceptance requirements in 

Performance Specification (PS) 11 of 

appendix B to part 60. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

September 13, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Docket: The EPA has 

established a docket for this rulemaking 

under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2016–0382. All documents in the docket 

are listed at https://

www.regulations.gov. Although listed in 

the index, some information is not 

publicly available, e.g., Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, 

EPA WJC West Building, 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20004. The Public Reading Room is 

open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the EPA 

Docket Center is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Kimberly Garnett, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Air Quality 

Assessment Division, Measurement 

Technology Group (Mail Code: E143– 

02), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27709; telephone number: (919) 541– 

1158; fax number: (919) 541–0516; 

email address: garnett.kim@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The information in this document is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

C. Judicial Review 

II. Background 

III. Final Revisions to Procedure 2 

IV. Summary of Major Comments and 

Responses 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

The entities potentially affected by 

this rule include any facility that is 

required to install and operate a PM 

CEMS under any provision of title 40 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations. If you 

have any questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this action 

is available on the Internet through the 

EPA’s Technology Transfer Network 

(TTN) Web site, a forum for information 

and technology exchange in various 

areas of air quality management, 

measurement standards and 

implementation, etc. Following 

publication in the Federal Register, the 

EPA will post the Federal Register 

version of the promulgation and key 

technical documents on the TTN at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/ 

promulgated.html. 

C. Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA), judicial review of this 

final rule is available only by filing a 

petition for review in the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit by October 13, 2017. Under 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 155 / Monday, August 14, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 37823 

section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an 

objection to this final rule that was 

raised with reasonable specificity 

during the period for public comment 

can be raised during judicial review. 

Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the 

CAA, the requirements established by 

this final rule may not be challenged 

separately in any civil or criminal 

proceedings brought by the EPA to 

enforce these requirements. Section 

307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides 

that ‘‘[o]nly an objection to a rule or 

procedure which was raised with 

reasonable specificity during the period 

for public comment (including any 

public hearing) may be raised during 

judicial review.’’ This section also 

provides a mechanism for the EPA to 

convene a proceeding for 

reconsideration, ‘‘[i]f the person raising 

an objection can demonstrate to the EPA 

that it was impracticable to raise such 

objection within [the period for public 

comment] or if the grounds for such 

objection arose after the period for 

public comment (but within the time 

specified for judicial review) and if such 

objection is of central relevance to the 

outcome of the rule.’’ Any person 

seeking to make such a demonstration to 

us should submit a Petition for 

Reconsideration to the Office of the 

Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, 

William Jefferson Clinton Building, 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to 

both the person(s) listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section, and the Associate 

General Counsel for the Air and 

Radiation Law Office, Office of General 

Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Filing a petition 

for reconsideration by the Administrator 

of this final action does not affect the 

finality of this action for the purposes of 

judicial review, nor does it extend the 

time within which a petition for judicial 

review must be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of this action. 

II. Background 

On January 12, 2004, the EPA 

promulgated Procedure 2—Quality 

Assurance Requirements for Particulate 

Matter Continuous Emission Monitoring 

Systems at Stationary Sources (69 FR 

1786). Procedure 2, sections 10.4 (5) and 

(6), contain a requirement for 

conducting the annual Relative 

Correlation Audit (RCA) or Relative 

Response Audit (RRA) QA/QC test 

procedures, in which a specified 

amount of the required number of PM 

CEMS response values, or data points, 

must lie within the PM CEMS response 

range used to develop the PM CEMS 

correlation curve. In other words, when 

conducting the annual QA/QC tests, the 

PM CEMS response values should not 

be higher or lower than the values used 

to develop the correlation curve for that 

PM CEMS. Recently, as PM emission 

limits have been reduced and facilities 

have installed more robust PM emission 

control devices, a number of facilities 

have found that their PM emissions are 

lower than their PM CEMS correlation 

curve and, as a result, the facilities are 

now unable to meet the criteria needed 

to pass the annual Procedure 2 QA/QC 

tests. The EPA proposed to modify this 

language in Procedure 2 through a direct 

final rule (81 FR 83160; November 21, 

2016) and a parallel proposed rule (81 

FR 83189; November 21, 2016). In the 

direct final rule, the EPA stated that if 

the agency received any significant and 

relevant adverse comments to the direct 

final rule, it would withdraw the direct 

final rule and address all public 

comments in a subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed rule. The EPA 

stated it would not institute a second 

comment period on the proposed rule 

(81 FR 83161, November 21, 2016). The 

EPA received one significant and 

relevant adverse comment and, 

therefore, published a withdrawal of the 

direct final rule (81 FR 10711; February 

15, 2017). With this action, the EPA is 

responding to the adverse comment and 

finalizing revisions to Procedure 2. 

III. Final Revisions to Procedure 2 

This action finalizes the changes to 

Procedure 2 that were proposed on 

November 21, 2016 (81 FR 83189), and 

responds to the adverse comment 

received in response to that proposal by 

addressing conflicting language in 

sections 10.4(5) and 10.4(6). 

IV. Summary of Major Comments and 

Responses 

A commenter stated that the revisions 

to Procedure 2, as proposed by the EPA 

on November 21, 2016, do not achieve 

the intended result. As the commenter 

points out, sections 10.4(5) and 10.4(6) 

still contain language which requires 

that a portion of the data points from the 

RRA and RCA ‘‘must lie within the PM 

CEMS output range used to develop 

your correlation curve.’’ The commenter 

suggested that language in sections 

10.4(5)(ii) and 10.4(6)(ii) be removed. 

The EPA agrees with the commenter 

and removed the language in sections 

10.4(5)(ii) and 10.4(6)(ii). In addition, 

the language allowing the extension of 

the correlation curve to accommodate 

points that are lower than the original 

curve has been moved to make it clear 

that it is needed only when determining 

if the RRA and RCA meet the ± 25 

percent criteria originally contained in 

sections 10.4(5)(iii) and 10.4(6)(iii). 

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 (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA. This action provides performance 

criteria and QA/QC test procedures for 

assessing the acceptability of PM CEMS 

performance and data quality. These 

criteria and QA/QC test procedures do 

not add information collection 

requirements beyond those currently 

required under the applicable 

regulation. 

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 will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities. There are no small entities in 

the regulated industry for which 

Procedure 2 applies. 

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. This 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. Procedure 2 is applicable 

to facility owners and operators who are 

responsible for one or more PM CEMS 

used for monitoring emissions. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
37824 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 155 / Monday, August 14, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

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 does not concern an 

environmental health risk or safety risk. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations 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 (NTTAA) 

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 that this action will 

not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority or low-income 

populations because it does not affect 

the level of protection provided to 

human health or the environment. This 

action will help to ensure that emission 

control devices are operated properly 

and maintained as needed, thereby 

helping to ensure compliance with 

emission standards, which would 

benefit all affected populations. 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Continuous 

emission monitoring systems, 

Particulate matter, Performance 

specifications, Test methods and 

procedures. 

Dated: August 7, 2017. 

E. Scott Pruitt, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 60—STANDARDS OF 

PERFORMANCE FOR NEW 

STATIONARY SOURCES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 60 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

■ 2. In Appendix F, Procedure 2, in 

section 10.4, paragraphs (5) and (6) are 

revised to read as follows: 

Appendix F to Part 60—Quality 

Assurance Procedures 

* * * * * 

Procedure 2—Quality Assurance 

Requirements for Particulate Matter 

Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at 

Stationary Sources 

* * * * * 

10.4 * * * 

(5) What are the criteria for passing a RCA? 

To pass a RCA, you must meet the criteria 

specified in paragraphs (5)(i) and (ii) of this 

section. If your PM CEMS fails to meet these 

RCA criteria, it is out of control. 

(i) For all 12 data points, the PM CEMS 

response value can be no greater than the 

greatest PM CEMS response value used to 

develop your correlation curve. 

(ii) At least 75 percent of a minimum 

number of 12 sets of PM CEMS and reference 

method measurements must fall within a 

specified area on a graph of the correlation 

regression line. The specified area on the 

graph of the correlation regression line is 

defined by two lines parallel to the 

correlation regression line, offset at a 

distance of ±25 percent of the numerical 

emission limit value from the correlation 

regression line. If any of the PM CEMS 

response values resulting from your RCA are 

lower than the lowest PM CEMS response 

value of your existing correlation curve, you 

may extend your correlation regression line 

to the point corresponding to the lowest PM 

CEMS response value obtained during the 

RCA. This extended correlation regression 

line must then be used to determine if the 

RCA data meets this criterion. 

(6) What are the criteria to pass a RRA? To 

pass a RRA, you must meet the criteria 

specified in paragraphs (6)(i) and (ii) of this 

section. If your PM CEMS fails to meet these 

RRA criteria, it is out of control. 

(i) For all three data points, the PM CEMS 

response value can be no greater than the 

greatest PM CEMS response value used to 

develop your correlation curve. 

(ii) At least two of the three sets of PM 

CEMS and reference method measurements 

must fall within the same specified area on 

a graph of the correlation regression line as 

required for the RCA and described in 

paragraph (5)(ii) of this section. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2017–17123 Filed 8–11–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 300 

[Docket No. 170329334–7665–01] 

RIN 0648–XF578 

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries 

for Highly Migratory Species; 2017 

Bigeye Tuna Longline Fishery Closure 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; fishery closure. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is closing the U.S. 

pelagic longline fishery for bigeye tuna 

in the western and central Pacific Ocean 

because the fishery has reached the 

2017 catch limit. This action is 

necessary to ensure compliance with 

NMFS regulations that implement 

decisions of the Western and Central 

Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 

DATES: Effective 12:01 a.m. local time 

September 1, 2017, 2017, through 

December 31, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: NMFS prepared a plain 

language guide and frequently asked 

questions that explain how to comply 

with this rule; both are available at 

https://www.regulations.gov/ 

docket?D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0092. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jarad Makaiau, NMFS Pacific Islands 

Region, 808–725–5176. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pelagic 

longline fishing in the western and 

central Pacific Ocean is managed, in 

part, under the Western and Central 

Pacific Fisheries Convention 

Implementation Act (Act). Regulations 

governing fishing by U.S. vessels in 

accordance with the Act appear at 50 

CFR part 300, subpart O. 

NMFS established a calendar year 

2017 limit of 3,138 metric tons (mt) of 

bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) that may 

be caught and retained in the U.S. 

pelagic longline fishery in the area of 

application of the Convention on the 

Conservation and Management of 

Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the 

Western and Central Pacific Ocean 

(Convention Area) (82 FR 36341, August 

4, 2017). NMFS monitored the retained 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES