40072 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

1EPA’s regulations governing the implementation 

of NSR permitting programs are contained in 40 

CFR 51.160—51.166; 52.21, 52.24; and part 51, 

appendix S. The CAA NSR program is composed 

of three separate programs: PSD, NNSR, and Minor 

NSR. PSD is established in part C of title I of the 

CAA and applies in areas that meet the NAAQS— 

‘‘attainment areas’’—as well as areas where there is 

insufficient information to determine if the area 

meets the NAAQS—‘‘unclassifiable areas.’’ The 

NNSR program is established in part D of title I of 

the CAA and applies in areas that are not in 

attainment of the NAAQS—‘‘nonattainment areas.’’ 

The Minor NSR program addresses construction or 

modification activities that do not qualify as 

‘‘major’’ and applies regardless of the designation 

of the area in which a source is located. Together, 

these programs are referred to as the NSR programs. 

directions given to them by the Captain 

of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene 

representative. 

Dated: August 17, 2017. 

Joseph S. Dufresne, 

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

Port Buffalo. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17933 Filed 8–23–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0371; FRL–9966–47– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; Alabama: PSD 

Replacement Units 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a portion of 

Alabama’s State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision submitted by the State of 

Alabama, through the Alabama 

Department of Environmental 

Management (ADEM), on May 7, 2012. 

The portion of the revision that EPA is 

approving relates to the State’s 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) permitting regulations. In 

particular, the revision adds a definition 

of ‘‘replacement unit’’ and provides that 

a replacement unit is a type of existing 

emissions unit under the definition of 

‘‘emissions unit.’’ This action is being 

taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act). 

DATES: This direct final rule is effective 

October 23, 2017 without further notice, 

unless EPA receives adverse comment 

by September 25, 2017. If EPA receives 

such comments, it will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register and inform the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No EPA–R04– 

OAR–2017–0371 at http:// 

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 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andres Febres of the Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. 

Febres can be reached by telephone at 

(404) 562–8966 or via electronic mail at 

febres-martinez.andres@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What action is the Agency taking? 

On May 7, 2012, ADEM submitted a 

SIP revision for EPA’s approval that 

includes, among other things, changes 

to Alabama’s PSD permitting regulations 

as part of the State’s New Source 

Review (NSR) permitting program.1 The 

NSR program, established in parts C and 

D of title I of the CAA and EPA’s 

implementing regulations at 40 CFR 

51.165, 40 CFR 51.166, and 40 CFR 

52.21, is a preconstruction review and 

permitting program applicable to new 

major stationary sources of regulated 

NSR pollutants and major modifications 

at existing major stationary sources. A 

major modification is defined as any 

physical change in or change in the 

method of operation of a major 

stationary source that would result in a 

significant emissions increase of a 

regulated NSR pollutant and a 

significant net emissions increase of that 

pollutant from the major stationary 

source. See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1), 

51.166(b)(2)(i), and 52.21(b)(2)(i). 

In this document, EPA is taking direct 

final action to approve the portions of 

this submittal that make changes to 

ADEM Administrative Code Rule 335– 

3–14–.04—‘‘Air Permits Authorizing 

Construction in Clean Air Areas 

[Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Permitting (PSD)].’’ Alabama’s May 7, 

2012, SIP submittal changes the PSD 

regulations at Rule 335–3–14–.04 by 

adding a definition of ‘‘replacement 

unit’’ and by modifying the definition of 

‘‘emissions unit’’ to expressly include 

replacement units as existing emissions 

units. As revised in the May 5, 2017, 

withdrawal letter discussed in Section 

III, below, these changes are similar to 

those made to the Federal PSD 

regulations at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(7) and 

(33) in the rule titled ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 

Non-Attainment New Source Review 

(NSR): Reconsideration’’ See 68 FR 

63021 (November 7, 2003) (hereinafter 

referred to as the NSR Reform 

Reconsideration Rule). 

EPA is not taking action on the 

portions of Alabama’s May 7, 2012, 

submittal regarding ADEM 

Administrative Code Chapter 335–3– 

10—‘‘Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources,’’ and Chapter 335– 

3–11—‘‘National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants.’’ In the 

submittal, Alabama acknowledges that 

these regulations are not part of 

Alabama’s SIP and states that the 

‘‘revisions to these [regulations] are not 

proposed to be incorporated into 

Alabama’s SIP.’’ 

II. Background 

A. NSR Reform 

On December 31, 2002, EPA 

published final rule revisions to the 

CAA’s PSD and Nonattainment New 

Source Review (NNSR) programs. See 

67 FR 80186 (hereinafter referred to as 

the 2002 NSR Rule). The revisions 

included several major changes to the 

NSR program, including the addition of 

an actual-to-projected-actual emissions 

test for determining NSR applicability 

for existing emissions units. 

Following publication, EPA received 

numerous petitions requesting 

reconsideration of several aspects of the 

final rule. On July 30, 2003 (68 FR 

44624), EPA granted reconsideration on 

six issues, including whether 

replacement units should be allowed to 

use the actual-to-projected-actual 

applicability test to determine whether 

installing a replacement unit results in 

a significant emissions increase. On 

November 7, 2003, EPA published the 

NSR Reform Reconsideration Rule. See 

68 FR 63021. In the reconsideration 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 40073 

2The reconsideration granted by EPA opened a 

new 60-day public comment period, and carried out 

a new public hearing, only on three issues of the 

ERP. These three issues included: (1) The basis for 

determining that the ERP was allowable under the 

CAA; (2) the basis for selecting the cost threshold 

(20 percent of the replacement cost of the process 

unit) that was used in the final rule to determine 

if a replacement was routine; and (3) a simplified 

procedure for incorporating a Federal 

Implementation Plan into State Plans to 

accommodate changes to the NSR rules. 

3New York v. EPA, 443 F.3d 880 (D.C. Cir. 2006). 

rule, EPA continued to allow the owner 

or operator of a major stationary source 

to use the actual-to-projected-actual 

applicability test to determine whether 

installing a replacement unit results in 

a significant emissions increase. EPA 

also modified the rules by: (1) Adding 

a definition of ‘‘replacement unit,’’ and 

(2) revising the definition of ‘‘emissions 

unit’’ to clarify that a replacement unit 

is considered an existing emissions unit 

and therefore is eligible for the actualto-projected-actual test for major NSR 

applicability determinations. The 2002 

NSR Rule and the NSR Reform 

Reconsideration Rule are hereinafter 

collectively referred to as the ‘‘2002 

NSR Reform Rules.’’ 

B. Equipment Replacement Provision 

Under Federal regulations, certain 

activities are not considered to be a 

physical change or a change in the 

method of operation at a source, and 

thus do not trigger NSR review. One 

category of such activities is routine 

maintenance, repair and replacement 

(RMRR). On October 27, 2003, EPA 

published a rule titled ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 

Non-Attainment New Source Review 

(NSR): Equipment Replacement 

Provision of the Routine Maintenance, 

Repair and Replacement Exclusion’’ 

(hereinafter referred to as the ERP Rule). 

See 68 FR 61248. The ERP Rule 

provided criteria for determining 

whether an activity falls within the 

RMRR exemption. The ERP Rule 

provided a list of equipment 

replacement activities that are exempt 

from NSR permitting requirements, 

while ensuring that industries maintain 

safe, reliable, and efficient operations 

that will have little or no impact on 

emissions. Under the ERP Rule, a 

facility undergoing equipment 

replacement would not be required to 

undergo NSR review if the facility 

replaced any component of a process 

unit with an identical or functionally 

equivalent component. The rule 

included several modifications to the 

NSR rules to explain what would 

qualify as an identical or functionally 

equivalent component. 

Shortly after the October 27, 2003 

rulemaking, several parties filed 

petitions for review of the ERP Rule in 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit). The 

D.C. Circuit stayed the effective date of 

the rule pending resolution of the 

petitions. A collection of environmental 

groups, public interest groups, and 

States, subsequently filed a petition for 

reconsideration with EPA, requesting 

that the Agency reconsider certain 

aspects of the ERP Rule. EPA granted 

the petition for reconsideration on July 

1, 2004. See 69 FR 40278.2 After the 

reconsideration, EPA published its final 

response on June 10, 2005, which stated 

that the Agency would not change any 

aspects of the ERP. See 70 FR 33838 

(June 10, 2005). On March 17, 2006, the 

D.C. Circuit acted on the petitions for 

review and vacated the ERP Rule.3

III. Analysis of the State’s Submittal 

Alabama’s May 7, 2012, SIP revision 

makes changes to the State’s PSD 

permitting regulations by adding a 

definition of ‘‘replacement unit’’ at Rule 

335–3–14–.04(2)(bbb) and by modifying 

the definition of ‘‘emissions unit’’ at 

Rule 335–3–14–.04(2)(g) to expressly 

include replacement units as existing 

emissions units. As of the date of the 

submittal, these changes were intended 

to reflect revisions to the Federal 

regulations regarding replacement units 

included in the NSR Reform 

Reconsideration Rule and to reflect 

revisions regarding functionally 

equivalent components in the ERP Rule, 

as described in Sections II.A and II.B of 

this action, above. 

The SIP revision initially sought to 

add a definition of ‘‘replacement unit’’ 

at Rule 335–3–14–.04(2)(bbb) that 

combined the Federal definition of 

‘‘replacement unit’’ with language 

concerning functionally equivalent 

units and basic design parameters from 

the ERP Rule. However, the ERP Rule 

was vacated by the D.C. Circuit 

following the submittal of Alabama’s 

SIP revision. Accordingly, on May 5, 

2017, Alabama submitted a letter to EPA 

withdrawing, among other things, 

portions of the definition of 

‘‘replacement unit’’ form its May 7, 

2012, SIP revision that incorporated 

language from the ERP Rule with the 

exception of one sentence in 

subparagraph (bbb)(3) that provides an 

example of a ‘‘basic design parameter’’ 

as it relates to a replacement unit. EPA 

has evaluated this sentence, and the 

Agency believes that it is simply an 

illustrative example and that Alabama’s 

provisions relating to RMRR remain 

consistent with Federal provisions and 

the CAA regarding RMRR. Pursuant to 

the withdrawal letter, the text of Rule 

335–3–14–.04(2)(bbb)(3) for 

incorporation into the SIP reads as 

follows: 

Replacement unit means an emissions unit 

for which all the criteria listed in 

subparagraphs (2)(bbb)1. through 4. of this 

section are met. No creditable emission 

reductions shall be generated from shutting 

down the existing emissions unit that is 

replaced. A replacement unit is subject to all 

permitting requirements for modifications 

under this rule. 

1. The emissions unit is a reconstructed 

unit within the meaning of 40 CFR 

60.15(b)(1), or the emissions unit completely 

takes the place of an existing emissions unit. 

2. The emissions unit is identical to or 

functionally equivalent to the replaced 

emissions unit. 

3. The replacement does not alter the basic 

design parameters of the process unit. Basic 

design parameters of a replaced unit shall 

also include all source specific emission 

limits and/or monitoring requirements. 

4. The replaced emissions unit is 

permanently removed from the major 

stationary source, otherwise permanently 

disabled, or permanently barred from 

operation by a permit that is enforceable as 

a practical matter. If the replaced emissions 

unit is brought back into operation, it shall 

constitute a new emissions unit. 

In Rule 335–3–14–.04(2)(g), Alabama 

revises the definition of ‘‘Emissions 

Unit’’ by adding a new sentence at 

subparagraph (g)(2) that expressly 

includes replacement units as existing 

emissions units. This sentence 

references the new definition of 

‘‘replacement unit’’ at Rule 335–3–14– 

.04(2)(bbb), as presented above, and is 

consistent with the Federal definition of 

the term ‘‘replacement unit’’ at 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(33). EPA has concluded that 

adding this change and Rule 335–3–14– 

.04(2)(bbb) to the SIP will not interfere 

with any applicable requirement 

concerning attainment and reasonable 

further progress (as defined in section 

171), or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation 

by reference of ADEM Administrative 

Code Rules 335–3–14–.04(2)(g) and 

335–3–14–.04(2)(bbb), state effective on 

May 29, 2012. EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, these materials 

generally available through 

www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA 

Region 4 Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

Therefore, these materials have been 

approved by EPA for inclusion in the 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with RULES
40074 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

4 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997). 

State implementation plan, have been 

incorporated by reference by EPA into 

that plan, are fully federally enforceable 

under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA 

as of the effective date of the final 

rulemaking of EPA’s approval, and will 

be incorporated by reference by the 

Director of the Federal Register in the 

next update to the SIP compilation.4

V. Final Action 

EPA is taking direct final action to 

approve the portions of Alabama’s May 

7, 2012, SIP submittals, as revised via 

the State’s May 5, 2017 withdrawal 

letter, that modify Rule 335–3–14– 

.04(2)(g) and add Rule 335–3–14– 

.04(2)(bbb), as described above. This 

action is limited to the two rule 

revisions currently before the Agency 

and does not modify any other PSD 

rules in Alabama’s SIP. 

EPA is approving the aforementioned 

changes to the SIP without prior 

proposal because the Agency views this 

as a noncontroversial submittal and 

anticipates no adverse comments. 

However, in the proposed rules section 

of this Federal Register publication, 

EPA is publishing a separate document 

that will serve as the proposal to 

approve the SIP revision should adverse 

comments be filed. This rule will be 

effective October 23, 2017 without 

further notice unless the Agency 

receives adverse comments by 

September 25, 2017. 

If EPA receives such comments, then 

EPA will publish a document 

withdrawing the final rule and 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. All adverse comments 

received will then be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period. Parties 

interested in commenting should do so 

at this time. If no such comments are 

received, the public is advised that this 

rule will be effective on October 23, 

2017 and no further action will be taken 

on the proposed rule. 

Please note that if we receive adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, we may adopt as 

final those provisions of the rule that are 

not the subject of an adverse comment. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by October 23, 2017. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule 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 may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of this Federal Register, rather than file 

an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

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, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: August 7, 2017. 

V. Anne Heard, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart B—Alabama 

■ 2. Section 52.50(c) is amended under 

‘‘Chapter No. 335–3–14 Air Permits’’ by 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 40075 

revising the entry for ‘‘Section 335–3– 

14–.04’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.50 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA APPROVED ALABAMA REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Chapter No. 335–3–14 Air Permits 

Section 335–3–14–.04 ... Air Permits Authorizing 

Construction in Clean 

Air Areas [Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration Permitting 

(PSD)].

5/29/2012 8/24/2017 [Insert citation of publication].As of August 24, 2017 Section 335–3–14–.04 

does not include Alabama’s revision to adopt 

the PM2.5 SILs threshold and provisions (as 

promulgated in the October 20, 2010 PM2.5

PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule at 40 CFR 

1.166(k)(2) and the term ‘‘particulate matter 

emissions’’ (as promulgated in the May 16, 

2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule (at 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(49)(vi)). 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2017–17342 Filed 8–23–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 160906822–7547–02] 

RIN 0648–BG33 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; SnapperGrouper Fishery of the South Atlantic 

Region; Amendment 37; Correction 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: NMFS published a final rule 

on July 25, 2017, to implement 

management measures described in 

Amendment 37 to the Fishery 

Management Plan for the SnapperGrouper Fishery of the South Atlantic 

Region (Amendment 37). This 

notification corrects the coordinate 

contained in footnote 2 to Table 1 in the 

regulatory text to be consistent with the 

same management boundary and 

coordinate described in other 

regulations applicable to the snappergrouper fishery. 

DATES: This correction notice is effective 

on August 24, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adam Bailey, NMFS Southeast Regional 

Office, telephone: 727–824–5305, email: 

adam.bailey@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 

25, 2017, NMFS published a final rule 

in the Federal Register (82 FR 34584) to 

implement management measures in 

Amendment 37. The final rule modifies 

the fishery management unit boundaries 

for hogfish in the South Atlantic by 

establishing two hogfish stocks, a 

Georgia through North Carolina (GA/ 

NC) stock and a Florida Keys/East 

Florida (FLK/EFL) stock; establishes a 

rebuilding plan for the FLK/EFL hogfish 

stock; specifies fishing levels and 

accountability measures (AMs), and 

modifies or establishes management 

measures for the GA/NC and FLK/EFL 

stocks of hogfish. The purpose of the 

final rule is to manage hogfish using the 

best scientific information available 

while ending overfishing and rebuilding 

the FLK/EFL hogfish stock. The final 

rule is effective August 24, 2017. 

Need for Correction 

As explained in the final rule for 

Amendment 37, NMFS corrected an 

error with the footnotes in Table 1 of 

§ 622.1. After the final rule published, 

NMFS discovered an additional error in 

one of those footnotes addressed in the 

final rule for Amendment 37. NMFS 

determined that a coordinate describing 

a management boundary for black sea 

bass and scup in footnote 2 was 

inaccurate and inconsistent with the 

same management boundary referenced 

in subpart I of part 622 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations. NMFS publishes 

this notification to correct that mistake. 

The coordinate in footnote 2 is intended 

to be ‘‘35°15.19′’’, not ‘‘35°15.9′’’. 

Corrections 

In the Federal Register on July 25, 

2017, in FR Doc. 2017–15588: 

1. On p. 34594, instruction 2 is 

corrected to read as follows: 

‘‘2. In § 622.1, revise the Table 1 entry 

for ‘‘FMP for the Snapper-Grouper 

Fishery of the South Atlantic Region,’’ 

revise the entry for footnote 2, and add 

footnote 8 to Table 1 to read as follows:’’ 

2. On page 34594, footnote 2 in Table 

1 to § 622.1 is corrected to read as 

follows: 

‘‘ 2Black sea bass and scup are not 

managed by the FMP or regulated by 

this part north of 35°15.19′ N. lat., the 

latitude of Cape Hatteras Light, NC.’’ 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: August 21, 2017. 

Chris Oliver, 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17970 Filed 8–23–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 160906822–7547–02] 

RIN 0648–XF602 

Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South 

Atlantic; 2017 Recreational and 

Commercial Closures for the Florida 

Keys/East Florida Stock of Hogfish in 

the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with RULES