43494 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 179 / Monday, September 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

Rule 28 Revocation of Permits (Revised 

07/18/72) 

Rule 29 Conditions on Permits (Revised 

03/14/06) 

Rule 30 Permit Renewal (Revised 04/13/04) 

Rule 32 Breakdown Conditions: Emergency 

Variances, A., B.1., and D. only. (Revised 

02/20/79) 

Rule 33 Part 70 Permits-General (Revised 

04/12/11) 

Rule 33.1 Part 70 Permits—Definitions 

(Revised 04/12/11) 

Rule 33.2 Part 70 Permits—Application 

Contents (Revised 04/10/01) 

Rule 33.3 Part 70 Permits—Permit Content 

(Revised 09/12/06) 

Rule 33.4 Part 70 Permits—Operational 

Flexibility (Revised 04/10/01) 

Rule 33.5 Part 70 Permits—Timeframes for 

Applications, Review and Issuance 

(Adopted 10/12/93) 

Rule 33.6 Part 70 Permits—Permit Term 

and Permit Reissuance (Adopted 

10/12/93) 

Rule 33.7 Part 70 Permits—Notification 

(Revised 04/10/01) 

Rule 33.8 Part 70 Permits—Reopening of 

Permits (Adopted 10/12/93) 

Rule 33.9 Part 70 Permits—Compliance 

Provisions (Revised 04/10/01) 

Rule 33.10 Part 70 Permits—General Part 70 

Permits (Adopted 10/12/93) 

Rule 34 Acid Deposition Control (Adopted 

03/14/95) 

Rule 35 Elective Emission Limits (Revised 

04/12/11) 

Rule 36 New Source Review—Hazardous 

Air Pollutants (Adopted 10/06/98) 

Rule 42 Permit Fees (Revised 04/12/16) 

Rule 44 Exemption Evaluation Fee (Revised 

04/08/08) 

Rule 45 Plan Fees (Adopted 06/19/90) 

Rule 45.2 Asbestos Removal Fees (Revised 

08/04/92) 

Rule 47 Source Test, Emission Monitor, and 

Call-Back Fees (Adopted 06/22/99) 

Rule 50 Opacity (Revised 04/13/04) 

Rule 52 Particulate Matter—Concentration 

(Grain Loading)(Revised 04/13/04) 

Rule 53 Particulate Matter—Process Weight 

(Revised 04/13/04) 

Rule 54 Sulfur Compounds (Revised 

01/14/14) 

Rule 56 Open Burning (Revised 11/11/03) 

Rule 57 Incinerators (Revised 01/11/05) 

Rule 57.1 Particulate Matter Emissions 

From Fuel Burning Equipment (Adopted 

01/11/05) 

Rule 62.7 Asbestos-Demolition and 

Renovation (Adopted 06/16/92, Effective 

09/01/92) 

Rule 63 Separation and Combination of 

Emissions (Revised 11/21/78) 

Rule 64 Sulfur Content of Fuels (Revised 

04/13/99) 

Rule 68 Carbon Monoxide (Revised 

04/13/04) 

Rule 71 Crude Oil and Reactive Organic 

Compound Liquids (Revised 12/13/94) 

Rule 71.1 Crude Oil Production and 

Separation (Revised 06/16/92) 

Rule 71.2 Storage of Reactive Organic 

Compound Liquids (Revised 09/26/89) 

Rule 71.3 Transfer of Reactive Organic 

Compound Liquids (Revised 06/16/92) 

Rule 71.4 Petroleum Sumps, Pits, Ponds, 

and Well Cellars (Revised 06/08/93) 

Rule 71.5 Glycol Dehydrators (Adopted 

12/13/94) 

Rule 72 New Source Performance 

Standards (NSPS) (Revised 09/9/08) 

Rule 73 National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) 

(Revised 09/9/08) 

Rule 74 Specific Source Standards 

(Adopted 07/06/76) 

Rule 74.1 Abrasive Blasting (Revised 

11/12/91) 

Rule 74.2 Architectural Coatings (Revised 

01/12/10) 

Rule 74.6 Surface Cleaning and Degreasing 

(Revised 11/11/03—effective 07/01/04) 

Rule 74.6.1 Batch Loaded Vapor Degreasers 

(Adopted 11/11/03—effective 07/01/04) 

Rule 74.7 Fugitive Emissions of Reactive 

Organic Compounds at Petroleum 

Refineries and Chemical Plants (Revised 

10/10/95) 

Rule 74.8 Refinery Vacuum Producing 

Systems, Waste-Water Separators and 

Process Turnarounds (Revised 07/05/83) 

Rule 74.9 Stationary Internal Combustion 

Engines (Revised 11/08/05) 

Rule 74.10 Components at Crude Oil 

Production Facilities and Natural Gas 

Production and Processing Facilities 

(Revised 03/10/98) 

Rule 74.11 Natural Gas-Fired Residential 

Water Heaters—Control of NOX (Revised 

05/11/10) 

Rule 74.11.1 Large Water Heaters and 

Small Boilers (Revised 09/11/12) 

Rule 74.12 Surface Coating of Metal Parts 

and Products (Revised 04/08/08) 

Rule 74.15 Boilers, Steam Generators and 

Process Heaters (5 MMBTUs and greater) 

(Revised 11/08/94) 

Rule 74.15.1 Boilers, Steam Generators and 

Process Heaters (1 to 5 MMBTUs) 

(Revised 06/23/15) 

Rule 74.16 Oil Field Drilling Operations 

(Adopted 01/08/91) 

Rule 74.20 Adhesives and Sealants 

(Revised 09/11/12) 

Rule 74.23 Stationary Gas Turbines 

(Revised 1/08/02) 

Rule 74.24 Marine Coating Operations 

(Revised 09/11/12) 

Rule 74.24.1 Pleasure Craft Coating and 

Commercial Boatyard Operations 

(Revised 01/08/02) 

Rule 74.26 Crude Oil Storage Tank 

Degassing Operations (Adopted 

11/08/94) 

Rule 74.27 Gasoline and ROC Liquid 

Storage Tank Degassing Operations 

(Adopted 11/08/94) 

Rule 74.28 Asphalt Roofing Operations 

(Adopted 05/10/94) 

Rule 74.30 Wood Products Coatings 

(Revised 06/27/06) 

Rule 74.31 Metal Working Fluids and 

Direct-Contact Lubricants (Adopted 

11/12/13) 

Rule 75 Circumvention (Revised 11/27/78) 

Rule 101 Sampling and Testing Facilities 

(Revised 05/23/72) 

Rule 102 Source Tests (Revised 04/13/04) 

Rule 103 Continuous Monitoring Systems 

(Revised 02/09/99) 

Rule 154 Stage 1 Episode Actions (Adopted 

09/17/91) 

Rule 155 Stage 2 Episode Actions (Adopted 

09/17/91) 

Rule 156 Stage 3 Episode Actions (Adopted 

09/17/91) 

Rule 158 Source Abatement Plans 

(Adopted 09/17/91) 

Rule 159 Traffic Abatement Procedures 

(Adopted 09/17/91) 

Rule 220 General Conformity (Adopted 

05/09/95) 

Rule 230 Notice to Comply (Revised 

9/9/08) 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2017–19704 Filed 9–15–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 423 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0819; FRL–9967–90– 

OW] 

RIN 2040–AF76 

Postponement of Certain Compliance 

Dates for the Effluent Limitations 

Guidelines and Standards for the 

Steam Electric Power Generating Point 

Source Category 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Under the Clean Water Act 

(‘‘CWA’’), The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) intends to conduct a 

rulemaking to potentially revise certain 

best available technology economically 

achievable (‘‘BAT’’) effluent limitations 

and pretreatment standards for existing 

sources (‘‘PSES’’) for the steam electric 

power generating point source category, 

which were published in the Federal 

Register on November 3, 2015. EPA is, 

accordingly, postponing the associated 

compliance dates in the 2015 Rule. In 

particular, EPA is postponing the 

earliest compliance dates for the new, 

more stringent, BAT effluent limitations 

and PSES for flue gas desulfurization 

(‘‘FGD’’) wastewater and bottom ash 

transport water in the 2015 Rule for a 

period of two years. At this time, EPA 

does not intend to conduct a rulemaking 

that would potentially revise the new, 

more stringent BAT effluent limitations 

and pretreatment standards in the 2015 

Rule for fly ash transport water, flue gas 

mercury control wastewater, and 

gasification wastewater, or any of the 

other requirements in the 2015 Rule. As 

such, EPA is not changing the 

compliance dates for the BAT 

limitations and PSES established by the 

2015 Rule for these wastestreams. EPA’s 

action to postpone certain compliance 

dates in the 2015 Rule is intended to 

preserve the status quo for FGD 

wastewater and bottom ash transport 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 179 / Monday, September 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 43495 

1According to the petition, UWAG is a voluntary, 

ad hoc, unincorporated group of 163 individual 

energy companies and three national trade 

associations of energy companies: Edison Electric 

Institute, the National Rural Electric Cooperative 

Association, and the American Public Power 

Association. 

2A copy of each petition and the supplemental 

information is included in the docket for this rule, 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0819. 

water until EPA completes its next 

rulemaking concerning those 

wastestreams, and it thus does not 

otherwise amend the effluent 

limitations guidelines and standards for 

the steam electric power generating 

point source category. 

DATES: The final rule is effective 

September 18, 2017. In accordance with 

40 CFR part 23, this regulation shall be 

considered issued for purposes of 

judicial review at 1 p.m. Eastern 

Standard Time on October 2, 2017. 

Under section 509(b)(1) of the CWA, 

judicial review of this regulation can be 

had only by filing a petition for review 

in the U.S. Court of Appeals within 120 

days after the regulation is considered 

issued for purposes of judicial review. 

Under section 509(b)(2), the 

requirements in this regulation may not 

be challenged later in civil or criminal 

proceedings brought by EPA to enforce 

these requirements. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–OW–2009–0819. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., 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 electronically through https:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ronald Jordan, United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Engineering and Analysis Division; 

telephone number: (202) 566–1003; 

email address: jordan.ronald@epa.gov. 

Electronic copies of this document and 

related materials are available on EPA’s 

Web site at https://www.epa.gov/eg/ 

steam-electric-power-generatingeffluentguidelines-2015-final-rule. Copies of 

this final rule are also available at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On November 3, 2015, the EPA 

published a final rule amending 40 CFR 

part 423, the effluent limitations 

guidelines and standards for the steam 

electric power generating point source 

category, under Sections 301, 304, 306, 

307, 308, 402, and 501 of the CWA (33 

U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 

1342, and 1361). The amendments 

addressed limitations and standards on 

various wastestreams at steam electric 

power plants: FGD wastewater, bottom 

ash transport water, fly ash transport 

water, flue gas mercury control 

wastewater, gasification wastewater, 

and combustion residual leachate. 

Collectively, this rulemaking is known 

as the ‘‘Effluent Limitations Guidelines 

and Standards for the Steam Electric 

Power Generating Point Source 

Category,’’ or ‘‘2015 Rule.’’ For further 

information on the 2015 Rule, see 80 FR 

67838 (November 3, 2015). 

EPA received seven petitions for 

review of the 2015 Rule. The U.S. 

Judicial Panel on Multi-District 

Litigation issued an order on December 

8, 2015, consolidating all of the 

petitions in the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit, Southwestern 

Electric Power Co., et al. v. EPA, No. 15– 

60821. 

In a letter dated March 24, 2017, the 

Utility Water Act Group (‘‘UWAG’’) 1

submitted a petition for reconsideration 

of the 2015 Rule which requested that 

EPA suspend the Rule’s approaching 

deadlines. UWAG supplemented its 

petition with additional information in 

a letter dated April 13, 2017. In a letter 

dated April 5, 2017, the Small Business 

Administration (‘‘SBA’’) Office of 

Advocacy sent EPA a second petition 

for reconsideration of the 2015 Rule, 

which expressly supports UWAG’s 

petition and raises issues that SBA 

considers to be pertinent to small 

businesses. The petitions raise wideranging objections to the Rule.2 Among 

other things, the UWAG petition points 

to new data which they believe show 

that plants burning subbituminous and 

bituminous coal cannot comply with the 

2015 Rule’s limitations and standards 

for FGD wastewater and questions 

EPA’s characterization of bottom ash 

transport water. UWAG also requested 

that EPA suspend or delay the ‘‘rule’s 

fast-approaching compliance deadlines 

while EPA works to reconsider and 

revise, as appropriate, the substantive 

requirements of the current rule.’’ 

In an April 12, 2017 letter to those 

who submitted the reconsideration 

petitions, the Administrator announced 

his decision to reconsider the 2015 

Rule. See DCN SE06612. As explained 

in that letter, after considering the 

objections raised in the reconsideration 

petitions, the Administrator determined 

that it is appropriate and in the public 

interest to reconsider the Rule. On April 

14, 2017, EPA requested that the Fifth 

Circuit hold the case in abeyance while 

the Agency undertook reconsideration. 

On April 24, 2017, the Fifth Circuit 

granted the motion and placed the case 

in abeyance. 

On June 6, 2017 (82 FR 26017), EPA 

proposed to postpone the compliance 

dates for the new, more stringent, BAT 

effluent limitations and PSES in the 

2015 Rule for each of the following 

wastestreams: FGD wastewater, bottom 

ash transport water, fly ash transport 

water, flue gas mercury control 

wastewater, and gasification 

wastewater, while reconsideration of the 

2015 Rule was underway. EPA 

explained that this postponement would 

preserve the regulatory status quo with 

respect to wastestreams subject to the 

2015 Rule’s new, and more stringent, 

limitations and standards during 

reconsideration and that postponement 

of compliance dates is intended to 

prevent the unnecessary expenditure of 

resources until EPA finalizes any 

rulemaking as a result of its 

reconsideration of the 2015 Rule. EPA 

also solicited comments on whether this 

postponement should be for a specified 

period of time, for example, two years. 

On August 11, 2017, EPA sent a 

second letter to those who had 

requested reconsideration of the 2015 

Rule, announcing the Administrator’s 

decision to conduct a new rulemaking 

to potentially revise the new, more 

stringent BAT limitations and PSES in 

the 2015 Rule that apply to two 

wastestreams: FGD wastewater and 

bottom ash transport water. See DCN 

SE06670. On August 14, 2017, EPA filed 

a motion to govern further proceedings 

in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Fifth Circuit, which explained that EPA 

intends to conduct further rulemaking 

to potentially revise the new, more 

stringent BAT/PSES requirements in the 

2015 Rule applicable to FGD wastewater 

and bottom ash transport water, and 

requested, in part, that the Court sever 

and hold in abeyance all judicial 

proceedings concerning portions of the 

2015 Rule related to those particular 

requirements. On August 22, 2017, the 

Court granted EPA’s motion. 

In an earlier action, EPA 

administratively postponed certain 

compliance dates that had not yet 

passed in part of the 2015 Rule pursuant 

to Section 705 of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (‘‘APA’’), 5 U.S.C. 705, 

which states that ‘‘[w]hen an agency 

finds that justice so requires, it may 

postpone the effective date of action 

taken by it pending judicial review.’’ 82 

FR 19005 (April 25, 2017). EPA had 

postponed the compliance dates as a 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
43496 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 179 / Monday, September 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

temporary measure pursuant to Section 

705 to preserve the status quo while the 

litigation in the Fifth Circuit was 

pending and EPA’s reconsideration was 

underway. Because EPA has decided to 

conduct further rulemaking to 

potentially revise the new, more 

stringent BAT limitations and PSES in 

the 2015 Rule applicable to two specific 

wastestreams (FGD wastewater and 

bottom ash transport water), and it is 

today finalizing a rule which postpones 

the associated compliance dates in the 

2015 Rule pending its next rulemaking, 

there is no longer any need for the 

Agency to maintain its prior action 

pursuant to Section 705 of the APA. 

EPA, hereby, withdraws that action. 

II. Summary of Comments Received 

EPA received thousands of written 

comments on the proposed rule to 

postpone certain compliance dates in 

the 2015 Rule. EPA also held a public 

hearing on July 31, 2017. The comments 

on the proposed rule generally fall into 

one of four categories: (1) Support for 

postponement of compliance dates; (2) 

opposition to the postponement of 

compliance dates; (3) comments on the 

substantive requirements of the 2015 

Rule (which are outside the scope of 

this action, which concerns postponing 

certain compliance dates only); and (4) 

comments on the length of time that 

EPA should postpone the compliance 

dates. 

Commenters that support the 

postponement rule generally assert that 

the postponement is appropriate to 

prevent industry from spending 

‘‘unnecessary resources’’ until EPA 

completes its reconsideration of the 

2015 Rule. Many commenters who 

support a postponement in compliance 

dates state that, given the substantial 

costs required to implement technology 

required to comply with the 2015 Rule, 

as well as the time needed for designing 

and optimizing treatment systems, 

certainty in the discharge requirements 

is needed and postponement of 

compliance dates allows for that. In 

addition, commenters argue that the 

Agency has both the authority and the 

responsibility to postpone the 2015 Rule 

until it completes any rulemaking 

following its reconsideration process. 

Comments on the length of the 

postponement generally assert that EPA 

should postpone the compliance dates 

for a minimum of two years, until EPA 

has taken final action on any rule 

revisions, or some time period beyond 

when EPA has taken final action on any 

rule revisions. 

Commenters that oppose the 

postponement rule generally assert that 

(1) the technology bases underlying the 

2015 Rule are widely available and 

affordable now, many steam electric 

plants have already installed or are in 

the process of implementing these 

technologies, and postponing the 

compliance dates would hinder 

technology development; (2) any 

postponement allows power plants to 

continue to discharge pollutants that are 

harmful to public health and the 

environment, and the forgone public 

health and environmental benefits 

during any postponement outweigh the 

costs to industry; and (3) EPA lacks 

authority to postpone the compliance 

dates. 

III. Rationale for Finalizing a 

Postponement of Compliance Dates 

In light of new information not 

contained in the record for the 2015 

Rule and the inherent discretion the 

Agency has to reconsider past policy 

decisions consistent with the CWA and 

other applicable law, EPA intends to 

conduct a new rulemaking regarding the 

appropriate technology bases and 

associated limits for the BAT/PSES 

requirements applicable to FGD 

wastewater and bottom ash transport 

water discharged from steam electric 

power plants. Given this, and after 

carefully considering comments 

received on the proposed rule, EPA 

finds it appropriate to postpone the 

earliest compliance dates for the new, 

more stringent, BAT effluent limitations 

and PSES applicable to FGD wastewater 

and bottom ash transport water in the 

2015 Rule until it completes the new 

rulemaking. This maintains the 2015 

Rule as a whole at this time, with the 

only change being to postpone specific 

compliance deadlines for two 

wastestreams. Thus, the earliest 

compliance dates for plants to meet the 

new, more stringent FGD wastewater 

and bottom ash wastewater limitations 

and standards in the 2015 Rule, which 

were to be determined by the permitting 

authority as a date ‘‘as soon as possible 

beginning November 1, 2018 . . .’’, are 

now to be determined by the permitting 

authority as a date ‘‘as soon as possible 

beginning November 1, 2020 . . . .’’ 

EPA is not changing the ‘‘no later than’’ 

date of December 31, 2023, because EPA 

is not aware that the 2023 date is an 

immediate driver for expenditures by 

plants (petitioners had requested relief 

from the ‘‘fast-approaching compliance 

deadlines’’ in the 2015 Rule), and EPA 

plans to take up the appropriate 

compliance period in its next 

rulemaking. In order to be absolutely 

clear about what is being postponed, the 

final rule includes more precise 

regulatory text to implement the rule 

than was included in the proposed rule. 

Agencies have inherent authority to 

reconsider past decisions and to revise, 

replace or repeal a decision to the extent 

permitted by law and supported by a 

reasoned explanation. FCC v. Fox 

Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 

515 (2009); Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. 

State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 463 

U.S. 29, 42 (1983). See also Nat’l Ass’n 

of Home Builders v. EPA, 682 F.3d 

1032, 1038 & 1043 (D.C. Cir. 2012). 

Particularly relevant here, the CWA 

expressly authorizes EPA to revise 

effluent limitations and standards. 33 

U.S.C. 1311(d), 1314(b), (g)(1), (m)(1)(A), 

1317(b)(2). Moreover, in doing so, 

Section 304(b)(2)(B) of the CWA directs 

EPA to consider several factors, 

including ‘‘other factors as the 

Administrator deems appropriate,’’ and 

the Agency is afforded considerable 

discretion in deciding how much weight 

to give each factor. See, e.g., 

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 

1011, 1045 (D.C. Cir. 1978). In this case, 

where EPA has decided to undertake a 

new rulemaking, which may result in 

substantive changes to the 2015 Rule, 

that is an appropriate factor to consider 

and one that warrants the postponement 

of compliance dates for the new, more 

stringent BAT and PSES requirements 

for two wastestreams in the 2015 Rule, 

until such a rulemaking is complete 

(i.e., EPA issues any final rule that 

substantively revises the 2015 Rule or 

EPA decides not to issue such a final 

rule). This will prevent the potentially 

needless expenditure of resources 

during a rulemaking that may ultimately 

change the 2015 Rule in these respects. 

As mentioned, some commenters 

stated that the record for the 2015 Rule 

demonstrates that the technologies 

underlying the new, more stringent 

requirements for FGD wastewater and 

bottom ash transport water are widely 

available and affordable. 

Notwithstanding statements in the 2015 

Rule record, certain parties have raised 

serious concerns about the availability 

and affordability of the technology basis 

for the FGD wastewater and bottom ash 

transport water requirements in the 

2015 Rule, and the Administrator 

wishes to take some time to carefully 

review these requirements in light of 

those concerns and ensure any such 

requirements are technologically 

available and economically achievable 

within the meaning of the statute. EPA 

has discretion in determining 

technological availability and economic 

achievability and is not constrained by 

the CWA to make the same policy 

decision as the former Administration, 

so long as its decision is reasonable. As 

explained above, the Agency may 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 179 / Monday, September 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 43497 

3 In the 2015 Rule, EPA estimated the total 

annualized pre-tax compliance costs for the FGD 

and bottom ash requirements to be $486.8 million. 

See DCN SE05978. 

4EPA analyzed both pre-tax and post-tax costs. 

Pre-tax costs provide insight on the total 

expenditures as initially incurred by the plants. 

Post-tax costs are a more meaningful measure of 

compliance impact on privately owned for-profit 

plants, and incorporate approximate capital 

depreciation and other relevant tax treatments in 

the analysis. RIA, p. 3–6. 

reconsider past policy decisions 

consistent with the Clean Water Act and 

other applicable law. The Agency may 

also reconsider technical determinations 

in light of new information submitted to 

the Agency that was not in the record 

for the 2015 Rule. EPA intends to fully 

evaluate all of the issues raised in the 

petitions, including concerns about: 

Cost and impacts to steam electric 

facilities, public availability of 

information on which the rule is based, 

lack of data for plants that burn certain 

types of coal, and validity of certain 

pollutant data used in EPA’s 2015 Rule 

analysis. For example, petitioners raised 

concerns about the numerical BAT 

limitations and PSES applicable to FGD 

wastewater in the 2015 Rule. They 

assert that there are differences among 

coal types that affect the performance 

and costs of biological treatment and 

that EPA did not have data to 

demonstrate the performance of 

biological treatment on all coal types. 

To resolve this concern, following the 

rulemaking, industry collected (and 

continues to collect) additional data on 

the performance of biological treatment 

for different coal types. As another 

example, petitioners raised questions 

about the inclusion and validity of 

certain data due, in part, to what they 

assert are flaws in data acceptance 

criteria, obsolete analytical methods, 

and the treatment of non-detect 

analytical results, which petitioners 

believed resulted in an overestimation 

of pollutant loadings for bottom ash 

transport water. EPA agrees that these 

are important issues that warrant further 

consideration in conjunction with the 

statutory factors for determining BAT 

for these wastestreams. EPA thus 

intends to re-evaluate these and other 

concerns raised in the petitions in the 

next rulemaking. EPA acknowledges 

that postponement of certain of the 2015 

Rule’s compliance dates may be 

disruptive to vendors and treatment 

technology suppliers. EPA, however, 

must also consider the substantial 

investments required by the steam 

electric power industry to comply with 

the BAT limitations and PSES,3 and that 

certainty regarding the limitations and 

standards deserves prominent 

consideration by the Agency when these 

limitations and standards may change. 

As UWAG pointed out in its April 13, 

2017 letter, ‘‘a rule of this magnitude 

and complexity requires substantial 

time to come into compliance for 

multiple wastestreams. Detailed studies 

and planning, followed by large capital 

expenditures and subsequent 

installation and testing, are timeconsuming.’’ Companies have been 

evaluating their compliance options and 

are reaching the point at which they 

will be committing funds, incurring 

costs, or commencing construction to 

install technologies. 

As part of the 2015 Rule, EPA 

estimated the costs associated with 

compliance with the 2015 Rule’s new 

requirements. For all applicable 

wastestreams, EPA assessed the 

operations and treatment system 

components, identified equipment and 

process changes that the plant would 

likely make to meet the 2015 Rule, and 

estimated the cost to implement those 

changes. This includes, among other 

things, the capital costs of installing the 

technology (based on estimates of the 

technology selected as representing the 

level of control) and the operation and 

maintenance costs of operating the 

technology. See Technical Development 

Document (‘‘TDD’’), pp. 9–1 through 9– 

52. EPA estimated that the total post-tax 

annualized compliance costs would be 

$339.6 million/year. See Regulatory 

Impact Analysis (‘‘RIA’’), Table 3–2 

(Option D).4

The 2015 rulemaking record also 

describes evaluation of the initial 

capital costs that regulated parties 

would incur in the near term (if a stay 

were not in place) to meet the 2015 

Rule’s effluent limitations and 

standards. For the purpose of analysis, 

in the RIA, EPA assumed that all capital 

costs are incurred concurrently with 

technology installation according to 

discharge permit renewal schedules, but 

EPA realizes that feasibility studies and 

planning may need to be completed in 

advance of that date. Specifically, plants 

would incur engineering design costs, 

costs to acquire equipment, freight 

shipping costs to transport equipment 

from manufacturers to the installation 

site, costs for actions to prepare the site 

(such as installing concrete foundations 

and buildings for the new equipment), 

and construction expenses associated 

with connecting electrical and piping 

systems to new equipment. See TDD, p. 

9–3. EPA estimated post-tax annualized 

capital costs of $204.4 million/year. See 

RIA, Table 3–2 (Option D). Although 

there is a wide degree of variability 

among the costs particular plants would 

expend, EPA estimates that the average 

post-tax annualized capital compliance 

costs for a plant would be 

approximately $1.5 million/year. See 

TDD, Table 9–19 (plants with 

compliance costs); RIA, Table 3–2 

(Option D). To the extent that these 

costs are associated with the 2015 Rule 

requirements for FGD wastewater and 

bottom ash transport water, and in the 

event that EPA revises these 

requirements in a future rulemaking, 

these are costs that would be incurred 

for activities that ultimately might not 

be necessary. In that case, this would 

reflect costs incurred by facilities and 

potentially passed on to utility rate 

payers that ultimately did not need to be 

spent. 

In light of these imminent planning 

and capital expenditures that facilities 

incurring costs under the 2015 Rule 

would need to undertake in order to 

meet the earliest compliance deadlines 

for the new, more stringent limitations 

and standards in the 2015 Rule, and the 

fact that the Agency is conducting a new 

rulemaking regarding the appropriate 

technology bases and associated limits 

for BAT limitations and PSES 

applicable to FGD wastewater and 

bottom ash transport water, the Agency 

views it as appropriate to postpone the 

earliest compliance dates that have not 

yet passed for these wastestreams in 

2015 Rule. This will preserve the 

regulatory status quo with respect to 

requirements for FGD wastewater and 

bottom ash transport water until the 

new rulemaking is complete. 

Some commenters also express 

concerns that postponement of 

compliance dates would hinder 

technology advancements. EPA’s 

experience does not support this 

concern. The record for the 2015 Rule 

demonstrates that technology 

advancements were not hindered during 

that rulemaking. Rather, as explained in 

the preamble to the final 2015 Rule, 

vendors continued to improve existing 

technologies and to develop new 

technologies during the rulemaking 

leading up to the 2015 Rule. 

EPA acknowledges that postponement 

of the compliance dates could lead to a 

delay in the accrual of some of the 

benefits attributable to the 2015 Rule. 

The 2015 Rule required that steam 

electric power plants would comply 

with the new, more stringent 

requirements no later than 2023, with 

plants expected to implement new 

control technologies over a five-year 

compliance period of 2019–2023 

according to their permit renewal 

schedule. In the record for the 2015 

Rule, EPA estimated the value of certain 

benefits linked to reduced pollutant 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
43498 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 179 / Monday, September 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

5The calculations are based on the benefits and 

costs estimated for the 2015 Rule, which were 

detailed in the ‘‘Benefit and Cost Analysis for the 

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for 

the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source 

Category’’ (BCA) and ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis 

for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 

Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating 

Point Source Category’’ (RIA) reports. 

6 If EPA does not complete a new rulemaking by 

November, 2020, it plans to further postpone the 

compliance dates such that the earliest compliance 

date is not prior to completion of a new rulemaking. 

discharges that could be monetized for 

the period 2019 through 2042. Based on 

the 2015 Rule data and methodology, 

and depending on the inclusion of the 

Clean Power Plan, EPA estimates that 

foregone annualized benefits for a twoyear delay would be between $26.6 

million and $33.6 million.5 EPA 

similarly estimates that plants would 

experience annualized cost savings of 

between $27.5 million and $36.8 

million as a result of a two-year delay. 

See DCN SE06668 for additional details, 

including calculations of the foregone 

benefits and cost savings. EPA 

understands that these estimates have 

uncertainty due to, for example, the 

possibility of unexpected 

implementation approaches, and thus 

that the actual cost savings could have 

been somewhat higher or lower than 

estimated. Similarly, due to data and 

analysis limitations, the forgone 

monetized benefits are likely 

underestimated. These estimates, 

however, are consistent with and reflect 

the best data and analysis available at 

the time of the 2015 Rule. 

EPA notes that, as explained earlier, 

there is uncertainty as to the FGD 

wastewater and bottom ash transport 

water BAT/PSES requirements while 

EPA conducts a new rulemaking. If EPA 

did not postpone the compliance dates, 

industry would likely incur costs as it 

prepares to comply with the 2015 Rule, 

irrespective of what EPA ultimately 

determines to be BAT/PSES for FGD 

wastewater and bottom ash transport 

water. By contrast, under the 2015 Rule, 

even if permits were written today, the 

earliest those permits would have 

required compliance with the 

limitations and standards at issue are 

‘‘as soon as possible beginning 

November 1, 2018.’’ So, while some 

companies would have to plan to 

comply and spend money right away, 

the benefits would not begin to accrue 

until 2018, at the earliest. Also, these 

benefits may not be lost if a permitting 

authority requires similar effluent 

limitations where necessary to meet 

applicable water quality standards, 

under CWA section 301(b)(1)(C). EPA 

has carefully weighed the concerns 

about potentially foregone benefits with 

the consideration of the costs that could 

needlessly be incurred should the 

requirements be changed, as well as the 

overall uncertainty and potential 

confusion that would be caused by 

imposing the 2015 Rule requirements 

while simultaneously undertaking 

rulemaking that may change those 

requirements. On balance, EPA has 

concluded the more reasonable 

approach is to postpone the compliance 

dates in the 2015 Rule. 

Thus, EPA agrees with commenters 

who argue that it should postpone the 

new, more stringent BAT/PSES 

requirements for FGD wastewater and 

bottom ash transport water in the 2015 

Rule until it completes a new 

rulemaking on these wastestreams. After 

reflecting on the time it typically takes 

the Agency to propose and finalize 

revised effluent limitations guidelines 

and standards, and in light the 

characteristics of this industry and the 

anticipated scope of the next 

rulemaking, EPA projects it will take 

approximately three years to propose 

and finalize a new rule (Fall 2020). See 

DCN SE06667. Consequently, EPA is 

postponing the earliest compliance 

dates for the new, more stringent, BAT 

effluent limitations and PSES for FGD 

wastewater and bottom ash transport 

water for a period of two years 

(November 1, 2020).6 To the extent that 

commenters believe a postponement 

under this rule should last beyond the 

time it takes EPA to complete its new 

rulemaking, such comments are 

appropriately considered as part of, and 

in light of, that new rulemaking and not 

this action. As explained, this rule is 

intended only as a relatively short-term 

measure until EPA completes the next 

rulemaking, and EPA anticipates that 

the next rulemaking will necessarily 

address compliance dates in some 

fashion. Although EPA proposed to 

postpone the compliance dates for the 

new, more stringent requirements 

applicable to fly ash transport water, 

gasification wastewater, and flue gas 

mercury control (FGMC) wastewater, in 

addition to the requirements for FGD 

wastewater and bottom ash transport 

water, this final rule does not postpone 

those former compliance dates. 

Commenters stated that EPA has no 

basis to postpone compliance dates for 

requirements that parties have not 

expressly argued should be 

reconsidered, such as those for fly ash 

transport water and FGMC wastewater. 

EPA agrees that the final rule should 

postpone only those requirements that 

the Agency plans to potentially revise in 

the next rulemaking. Because EPA is not 

conducting a new rulemaking 

concerning any of the other issues 

addressed by the 2015 Rule, including 

requirements for fly ash transport water, 

gasification wastewater, and FGMC 

wastewater, EPA is not changing the 

compliance dates for these wastestreams 

or any of the other compliance dates for 

the requirements in that Rule. The 

record for the 2015 Rule demonstrates 

that changes associated with converting 

a fly ash system are unrelated from an 

engineering perspective to conversions/ 

upgrades for bottom ash transport water 

and FGD treatment systems. Converting 

a fly ash system requires installing a silo 

to capture the dry fly ash, which is 

subsequently transported offsite to 

beneficial reuse markets (e.g., cement 

plants) or landfilled. Bottom ash is 

handled separately, regardless of 

whether it is wet or dry. The same is 

true for FGD wastes. EPA recognizes 

however, that from a financing and 

long-term planning perspective, there 

are advantages to a facility in knowing 

the full suite of requirements it will 

need to comply with over a longer term 

planning horizon. 

Some facilities commented that they 

may need to know what the ultimate 

requirements will be for bottom ash 

transport water and FGD wastewater to 

assist them in considering alternatives 

for meeting the requirements for the 

other waste streams (fly ash transport 

water and FGMC wastewater) for which 

EPA is not postponing the earliest 

compliance dates. EPA notes that there 

continues to be discretion under the 

2015 Rule for permitting authorities to 

consider: Time needed to 

‘‘expeditiously plan (including time to 

raise capital), design, procure, and 

install equipment’’ to comply with the 

rule; changes being made at the plant to 

comply with several other rules; and 

‘‘other factors as appropriate’’ in 

determining exactly when, within a 

specified compliance period, the 2015 

Rule’s new, more stringent limitations 

apply to any given plant. See 40 CFR 

423.11(t). 

In light of the compliance date 

postponements being finalized today, in 

determining the ‘‘as soon as possible 

date,’’ EPA believes it would be 

reasonable for permitting authorities to 

consider the need for a facility to make 

integrated planning decisions regarding 

compliance with the requirements for 

all of the wastestreams currently subject 

to new, more stringent requirements in 

the 2015 Rule, as well as the other rules 

identified in § 423.11(t) to the extent 

that a facility demonstrates such a need. 

This could include harmonizing 

schedules to the extent provided for 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 179 / Monday, September 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 43499 

7For any final effluent limitation that is specified 

to become applicable after November 1, 2018, the 

specified date must be as soon as possible, but in 

no case later than December 31, 2023. 

under the 2015 Rule 7 for meeting the 

2015 Rule requirements for fly ash 

transport water and FGMC wastewater 

to allow time for a facility to have 

certainty regarding what their ultimate 

requirements will be under the steam 

electric ELGs, as well as the 

requirements under the other rules 

listed in § 423.11(t). 

This rule is effective immediately 

upon publication. Section 553(d) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 

553(d), provides that publication of a 

substantive rule must be made no less 

than 30 days before its effective date, 

subject to several exceptions. Section 

553(d)(1) establishes an exception for ‘‘a 

substantive rule which grants or 

recognizes an exemption or relieves a 

restriction.’’ The exception in Section 

553(d)(1) reflects the purpose of the 30- 

day notice requirement, which is to give 

affected entities time to prepare for the 

effective date of a rule or to take any 

other action which the issuance of a rule 

may prompt. This rule fits within 

Section 553(d)(1) because it postpones 

certain requirements on steam electric 

power plants to control their pollutant 

discharges by two years, and as a result, 

it relieves a restriction on regulated 

entities for that period. 

IV. 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 a significant regulatory 

action that was submitted to the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review. Any changes made in response 

to OMB recommendations have been 

documented in the docket. 

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

This action is considered an 

Executive Order 13771 deregulatory 

action. Details on the estimated cost 

savings of this final rule can be found 

in EPA’s analysis of the potential costs 

and benefits associated with this action. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This final rule does not involve any 

information collection activities subject 

to the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

D. 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. In making this 

determination, the impact of concern is 

any significant adverse economic 

impact on small entities. An agency may 

certify that a rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities if 

the rule relieves regulatory burden, has 

no net burden or otherwise has a 

positive economic effect on the small 

entities subject to the rule. This action 

maintains the 2015 Rule as a whole at 

this time, with the only change being to 

postpone specific compliance deadlines 

for two wastestreams. As described 

above, EPA estimates that steam electric 

plants, including some small entities, 

would experience annualized cost 

savings of $27.5 million as a result of 

this two-year delay. We have therefore 

concluded that this action will relieve 

regulatory burden for some directly 

regulated small entities. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain an 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, and does not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999). 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. 

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have Tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This final rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) because EPA previously 

determined that the environmental 

health risks or safety risks addressed by 

the requirements EPA is finalizing do 

not present a disproportionate risk to 

children. 

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ because it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution or use of energy. 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards that would require 

Agency consideration under NTTAA 

section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note. 

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

This is a final rule to delay action, 

and it does not change the requirements 

of the effluent limitations guidelines 

and standards published in 2015. While 

the postponement in compliance dates 

could delay the protection the 2015 

Rule would afford to all communities, 

including those impacted 

disproportionately by the pollutants in 

certain wastewater discharges, this 

action would not change any impacts of 

the 2015 Rule upon implementation. 

The EPA therefore believes it is more 

appropriate to consider the impact on 

minority and low-income populations 

in the context of possible substantive 

changes as part of any future 

rulemaking. 

L. Congressional Review Act 

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 a not a ‘‘major 

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 423 

Environmental protection, Electric 

power generation, Power plants, Waste 

treatment and disposal, Water pollution 

control. 

Dated: September 12, 2017. 

E. Scott Pruitt, 

Administrator. 

For reasons stated in the preamble, 

EPA amends 40 CFR part 423 as set 

forth below: 

PART 423—STEAM ELECTRIC POWER 

GENERATING POINT SOURCE 

CATEGORY 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 423 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 101; 301; 304(b), (c), (e), 

and (g); 306; 307; 308 and 501, Clean Water 

Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
43500 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 179 / Monday, September 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

Amendments of 1972, as amended; 33 U.S.C. 

1251; 1311; 1314(b), (c), (e), and (g); 1316; 

1317; 1318 and 1361). 

■ 2. Amend § 423.11 by revising 

paragraph (t) introductory text to read as 

follows: 

§ 423.11 Specialized definitions. 

* * * * * 

(t) The phrase ‘‘as soon as possible’’ 

means November 1, 2018 (except for 

purposes of § 423.13(g)(1)(i) and 

(k)(1)(i), and § 423.16(e) and (g), in 

which case it means November 1, 2020), 

unless the permitting authority 

establishes a later date, after receiving 

information from the discharger, which 

reflects a consideration of the following 

factors: 

* * * * * 

§ 423.13 [Amended] 

■ 3. Amend § 423.13 paragraphs (g)(1)(i) 

and (k)(1)(i) by removing the text 

‘‘November 1, 2018’’ and adding the text 

‘‘November 1, 2020’’ in its place. 

§ 423.16 [Amended] 

■ 4. Amend § 423.16 paragraphs (e) two 

times, and (g) by removing the text 

‘‘November 1, 2018’’ and adding the text 

‘‘November 1, 2020’’ in its place. 

[FR Doc. 2017–19821 Filed 9–15–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 635 

[Docket No. 170602535–7835–01] 

RIN 0648–XF480 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

Adjustments to 2017 Northern 

Albacore Tuna Quota, 2017 North and 

South Atlantic Swordfish Quotas, and 

2017 Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Reserve 

Category Quota 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS adjusts the northern 

albacore tuna annual baseline quota for 

2017 with available underharvest of the 

2016 adjusted U.S. northern albacore 

quota. NMFS also adjusts the North and 

South Atlantic swordfish baseline 

quotas for 2017 based on available 

underharvest from the 2016 adjusted 

U.S. quotas and international quota 

transfers. NMFS also augments the 2017 

Atlantic bluefin tuna Reserve category 

quota with available underharvest of the 

2016 adjusted U.S. bluefin tuna quota. 

This action is necessary to implement 

binding recommendations of the 

International Commission for the 

Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), 

as required by the Atlantic Tunas 

Convention Act (ATCA), and to achieve 

domestic management objectives under 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). 

DATES: Effective September 18, 2017, 

through December 31, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Supporting documents such 

as Environmental Assessments and 

Fishery Management Plans and their 

Amendments described below may be 

downloaded from the HMS Web site at 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/. These 

documents also are available upon 

request from Sarah McLaughlin, Steve 

Durkee, or Gray Redding at the 

telephone numbers below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah McLaughlin, 978–281–9260, 

Steve Durkee, 202–670–6637, or Gray 

Redding, 301–427–8503. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulations implemented under the 

authority of the Atlantic Tunas 

Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971 et 

seq.) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 

et seq.) governing the harvest of 

northern albacore, swordfish, and 

bluefin tuna by persons and vessels 

subject to U.S. jurisdiction are found at 

50 CFR part 635. Section 635.27(e) 

describes the northern albacore annual 

quota recommended by ICCAT and the 

annual northern albacore quota 

adjustment process. Section 635.27(c) 

describes the quota adjustment process 

for both North and South Atlantic 

swordfish. Section 635.27(a) subdivides 

the ICCAT-recommended U.S. bluefin 

tuna quota among the various domestic 

fishing categories, per the allocations 

established in the 2006 Consolidated 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species 

Fishery Management Plan (2006 

Consolidated HMS FMP) (71 FR 58058, 

October 2, 2006), as amended by 

Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated 

HMS FMP (Amendment 7) (79 FR 

71510, December 2, 2014), and describes 

the annual bluefin tuna quota 

adjustment process. NMFS is required 

under ATCA and the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act to provide U.S. fishing vessels with 

a reasonable opportunity to harvest the 

ICCAT-recommended quotas. 

The northern albacore quota 

implementation and quota adjustment 

processes, along with the bluefin tuna 

quota adjustment process, were 

previously analyzed in Amendment 7, 

which published in August 2014 and 

included a Final Environmental Impact 

Statement, Final Regulatory Impact 

Review (RIR), Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), and Final 

Social Impact Statement. ICCAT 

conducted another bluefin tuna stock 

assessment update in 2014, and, after 

considering the scientific advice in the 

stock assessment, adopted a 

recommendation regarding western 

Atlantic bluefin tuna management that 

increases the U.S. bluefin tuna quota for 

2015 and 2016 (ICCAT 

Recommendation 14–05). NMFS 

published a final rule to implement that 

baseline annual U.S. bluefin tuna quota 

on August 28, 2015 (80 FR 52198), and 

prepared an Environmental Assessment 

(EA), RIR, and FRFA for that action. 

ICCAT Recommendation 16–08 

extended the U.S. bluefin tuna 

allocation established in 

Recommendation 14–05 through 2017. 

The North Atlantic swordfish quota 

adjustment process was previously 

analyzed in the EA, RIR, and FRFA that 

were prepared for the 2012 Swordfish 

Quota Adjustment Rule (July 31, 2012; 

77 FR 45273). The South Atlantic 

swordfish quota adjustment process was 

previously analyzed in the EA, RIR, and 

FRFA that were prepared for the 2007 

Swordfish Quota Specification Final 

Rule (October 5, 2007; 72 FR 56929). In 

the 2016 North and South Atlantic 

Swordfish Quotas Adjustment Final 

Rule (July 26, 2016, 81 FR 48719), after 

taking public comment on the issue, 

NMFS announced its intent to no longer 

issue proposed and final specifications/ 

rules for North and South Atlantic 

swordfish quotas adjustments in cases 

where the quota adjustment follows 

previously codified and analyzed 

formulas. Therefore, beginning this year, 

NMFS is instead issuing a temporary 

final rule to adjust the quota, in a 

similar process to northern albacore and 

bluefin tuna quota adjustments. NMFS 

will continue to undertake notice and 

comment rulemaking when adopting 

new quotas, quota formulas, or 

otherwise altering conservation and 

management measures. 

Note that weight information for 

northern albacore and bluefin tuna 

below is shown in metric tons (mt) 

whole weight (ww), and both dressed 

weight (dw) and ww is shown for 

swordfish. 

Northern Albacore Annual Quota and 

Adjustment Process 

Since 1998, ICCAT has adopted 

recommendations regarding the 

northern albacore fishery. The current 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES