### 49913 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 159 / Tuesday, August 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

11. Indian Tribal Governments

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. 12. Energy Effects

This action is not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under section 2.B.2 figure 2–1, paragraph 34(g) of the Commandant Instruction because it involves the establishment of safety zones. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under the

**ADDRESSES**

. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

Accordingly, the interim rule amending 33 CFR part 165 that published at 79 FR 22398 on April 22, 2014, is adopted as a final rule without change.

Dated: July 27, 2015. D.R. Callahan, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015–20250 Filed 8–17–15; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 9110–04–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION**  **AGENCY**

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R07–OAR–2014–0602; FRL–9932–39– Region 7]** 

**Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of**  **Missouri, Controlling Emissions During Episodes of High Air Pollution**  **Potential**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Missouri and received by EPA on December 17, 2013, pertaining to Missouri’s regulation ‘‘Controlling Emissions During Episodes of High Air Pollution Potential.’’ This regulation specifies conditions that establish air pollution alerts and emergency alert levels, and associated procedures and emission reduction objectives statewide. This action revises the SIP by amending an existing table in the regulation, clarifying requirements of the regulation related to emission reduction plans and other provisions, and makes administrative and format changes, all consistent with Federal regulations.

**DATES :**  This final rule is effective on September 17, 2015.

**ADDRESSES :**  EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2014–0602. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e. , 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 Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. The Regional Office’s official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Amy Bhesania, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 913–551–7147, or by email at bhesania.amy@epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Throughout this document ‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’, or ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following: I. What is being addressed in this document? II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met? III. EPA’s Response to Comments IV. What action is EPA taking? I. What is being addressed in this document?

EPA is taking final action to approve a revision to the Missouri SIP received by EPA on December 17, 2013, pertaining to Missouri regulation 10 CSR 10–6.130, ‘‘Controlling Emissions During Episodes of High Air Pollution Potential.’’ This regulation specifies conditions that establish air pollution alerts and emergency alert levels, and associated procedures and emission reduction objectives statewide. This action revises the SIP by amending an existing table in the regulation, clarifying requirements of the regulation related to emission reduction plans and other provisions, and makes administrative and format changes all consistent with Federal regulations. EPA proposed approval of this rule on November 4, 2014 at 79 FR 65362.

Specifically, in subsection (1)(A), the regulation is being revised to clarify the applicability of the regulation to all sources and premises throughout the entire state with emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O 3 ), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) or Particulate Matter—10 Micron (PM 10 ) and 2.5 Micron (PM 2.5 ) that contribute to the air quality levels in the state. This clarification is consistent with federal regulations regarding prevention of air pollution emergency episodes found in 40 CFR part 51, subpart H.

In addition, specific terms in this regulation that were previously defined in section (2) have now been removed and placed in Missouri regulation 10 CSR 10–6.020, ‘‘Definitions and Common Reference Tables.’’

In section (3) of the regulation, table A is being amended to remove the specific breakpoint values for each relevant pollutant but retains the Air Quality Index (AQI) range values and categories for each pollutant. Because the AQI breakpoint values are updated each time a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) is revised, removing these values from the table eliminates unnecessary updates to this


### 49914 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 159 / Tuesday, August 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

1 ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,’’ William T. Harnett, Director, EPA’s Air Quality Policy Division, October 2, 2007. http:// www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/110a

_ sip

_ guid

_ fin100207.pdf

.
2 ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-hour Fine Particle (PM 2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards,’’ William T. Harnett, Director, EPA’s Air Quality Policy Division, September 25, 2009. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/
20090925

_harnett

_ pm25

_ sip

_ 110a12.pdf

.
3 ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards,’’ Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, October 14, 2011. http:// www.epa.gov/air/lead/pdfs/ 20111014infrastructure.pdf

.
4 ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure SIP Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),’’ Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, September 13,

2013. http://www.epa.gov/oar/urbanair/sipstatus/ docs/Guidance

_ on

_Infrastructure

_ SIP

_Elements

_ Multipollutant

_FINAL

_ Sept

_ 2013.pdf

. table. The AQI breakpoint values are established when EPA takes final action to revise a NAAQS. In subparagraph (3)(A)2., Missouri identifies that these breakpoint values are codified in 40 CFR part 58, appendix G and therefore applicable to this state regulation Missouri’s SIP approved regulation 10 CSR 10–6.010, Ambient Air Quality Standards, adopts EPA’s most recent air quality standards and thus associated AQI breakpoint values. Therefore there is no need for this regulation being amended as part of today’s action, to also contain these breakpoint values. This revision to the regulation does not alter any provisions or applicability of the regulation.

The conditions that are listed for alert level categories are being moved from a narrative outline format into a table format in subsection (3)(B), table B, to provide more clarity regarding the specific applicable conditions. The requirement for an air stagnation advisory to be in effect in order to trigger an alert has been removed from all alert level categories thus, the conditions that are required to establish an alert are more easily triggered.

The procedures established for addressing alert level conditions are being moved from a narrative outline into a table format in subsection (3)(C), table C, to provide clarity on applicable procedures. The alert level procedures associated with an orange alert which are currently listed in the regulation have been removed. These orange alert procedures were inadvertently retained when the state revised their regulation in 2002 to be consistent with revised Federal regulations by updating the formally called Pollution Standards Index (PSI) to the AQI standards and procedures as codified in 40 CFR part 58, appendix G. EPA took action to approve Missouri’s SIP revision on March 18, 2003 (68 FR 12829). Establishing orange alert procedures are not a Federal requirement. Today’s action amends the SIP to correct this error. This action does not alter the stringency of the regulation.

Additional clarity is being added to section (4) of the regulation addressing reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The alert plan requirements that are outlined in section (3) of the regulation are being moved to a table format, tables D, E, and F. These tables retain the same objectives as previously contained in the regulation, only modified in format and moved to section (4) of the regulation with the exception of one red alert procedure. The red alert procedure which previously outlined provisions for the director to request all entertainment functions and facilities be closed has been removed from the regulation. This procedure is not a requirement of Federal regulations for red alert procedures, and therefore remains consistent with Federal requirements. This does not alter the stringency of the regulation. This procedure remains applicable for maroon level procedures. II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as explained above, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), including section 110 and implementing regulations. These modifications will not adversely affect air quality and will not relax the SIP.
III. EPA’s Response to Comments

The public comment period on EPA’s proposed regulation opened November 4, 2014, the date of its publication in the Federal Register , and closed on December 4, 2014 (79 FR 65362). During this period, EPA received two comment letters. The first letter is in support of EPA’s action and therefore no response to the comment is necessary. The comments included in the second letter are addressed below.

Comment 1: The commenter expressed overall agreement with EPA actions, however requests EPA to ‘‘clarify certain aspects of the emergency episode program as well as the Air Quality Index (AQI) values derived from the significant harm levels (SHLs) for the PM 2.5 NAAQS.’’

Response 1: Because this comment is not directly related to EPA’s proposed action on November 4, 2014, no changes will be made in response to this comment. In this action, EPA is evaluating specific revisions to the existing SIP in Missouri. EPA is not addressing other Federal regulations that govern issues such as the AQI or SHLs for PM 2.5. EPA provides the following background and references as guidance to address the commenter’s request to clarify certain aspects of the emergency episode program.

EPA promulgated regulations for emergency episodes in 40 CFR part 51, subpart H (51.150 through 51.153). The regulations address the following:

• 51.150—how regions are classified for sulfur oxides (SO X ), PM, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), and ozone; • 51.151—the requirement for a contingency plan for any region classified as Priority I to prevent air pollution levels from reaching the significant harm levels (SHLs) established therein;

• 51.152—the specific content requirements for a contingency plan; a requirement that regions classified as Priority IA or II have a contingency plan that addresses a subset of those content requirements; a provision that regions ‘‘classified Priority III do not need to develop episode plans;’’ and an exemption mechanism for the Administrator; and

• 51.153—how states should review the classification of regions using the most recent three years of data; and a requirement to revise emergency episode plans if a higher classification is warranted by the recent air pollution levels.
EPA has issued several memoranda that provide guidance on emergency episode planning to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G), including the 2007 Infrastructure SIP Guidance for the 1997 ozone and 1997 fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) NAAQS, 1 the 2009 Infrastructure SIP Guidance for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS, 2 the 2011 Infrastructure SIP Guidance for the 2008 lead (Pb) NAAQS, 3 and the 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO 2 , 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), and all future NAAQS. The latter represents EPA’s most recent guidance. 4

Comment 2: The commenter also stated that EPA incorrectly stated in its November 4, 2014, proposed action that Missouri’s regulations are ‘‘consistent’’ with Federal regulations that meet the breakpoint values in subpart H.


### 49915 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 159 / Tuesday, August 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

Response 2: When stating the state’s action was ‘consistent’ with federal regulations, EPA was specifically referring to the Missouri revision in subsection (1)(A) of the regulation which was revised to clarify the applicability of the regulation to all sources and premises through the entire state. EPA believes that this specific revision to subsection (1)(A) of the regulation is in fact consistent with subpart H of 40 CFR part 51. This subsection of Missouri’s regulation does not relate to the AQI table as the commenter suggests.

Comment 3: The commenter implied that Missouri was removing SHLs from their regulation and was instead relying on AQI breakpoint values to determine the levels at which emergency episodes

occur.

Response 3: Missouri’s regulations do not specifically include SHL values, and therefore EPA is not taking action to remove SHLs. In addition, for identified priority areas in Missouri, the state is not changing these classifications or supplanting these priority levels with the AQI.

Comment 4: The commenter stated that AQI breakpoint values are not updated each time the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are revised.

Response 4: The January 15, 2013, final rule for the PM 2.5 standards updated the AQI breakpoint values for PM 2.5 . See 78 FR 3086. This is consistent with past EPA actions.

Comment 5: The fifth and sixth paragraphs of the commenter’s letter expresses concern about EPA’s historical actions related to the emergency episode program and that EPA has not determined a SHL (and thus AQI breakpoint values) specifically for PM 2.5 .

Response 5: Because this comment is not related to EPA’s proposed action on November 4, 2014, no changes will be made to EPA’s action in response to this comment. Further, because EPA is not taking action to address or revise any SHL in Missouri’s regulation, no changes will be made to EPA’s action in response to this aspect of the comment. See response to comment 1 above for further information on EPA’s historical actions related to the emergency episode program. In addition, while the regulations in 40 CFR part 51, subpart H do not address PM 2.5 specifically and do not identify a significant harm level or priority classification levels for PM 2.5 , the EPA has recommended to states, through the September 25, 2009 guidance, which remains in effect, that states only need to develop contingency plans for any area that has a monitored and recorded 24-hour PM 2.5 levels greater than 140.4 m g/m 3 since 2006. The EPA has evaluated PM 2.5 regulatory monitoring data in Missouri since 2006 and have confirmed that no values greater than 140.4 m g/m 3 have been recorded. Accordingly, EPA believes that there are no areas in Missouri for which a contingency plan is required at this time. If there were an area for which such a contingency plan were necessary, however, EPA’s 2013 infrastructure SIP guidance states, ‘‘the EPA believes that the central components of a contingency plan would be to reduce emissions from the source(s) at issue (if necessary by curtailing operations of . . . PM 2.5 sources) and public communication as needed.’’ Thus, the absence of a significant harm level and classification levels for PM 2.5 are not relevant, if Missouri were required to develop a contingency plan for purposes of PM 2.5 , which it is not at this time. However, EPA notes that the state regulation is applicable to ‘‘all emissions’’ including PM 2.5 and therefore the provisions of the state regulation apply to PM 2.5 as well.

Comment 6: The commenter requests clarification regarding the ‘‘placeholder’’ AQI levels and SHLs for PM 2.5 remain appropriate for the nation and for Missouri.

Response 6: EPA has previously approved Missouri’s emergency episode plan as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G), See 78 FR 37457. For a detailed rationale on EPA’s analysis of how Missouri meets these requirements, see EPA’s proposed action on April 10, 2013 (78 FR 21281).

In response to the commenter’s broader concern of the appropriateness of the AQI levels in relation to SHLs for PM 2.5 , EPA directs the commenter to EPA’s February 2007 issue paper on revising the AQI and setting a SHLs for PM 2.5 as previously referenced in
comment 1.

Comment 7: The commenter stated that, ‘‘EPA should not approve state regulations that are merely ‘consistent with’ federal regulations when EPA clearly set out ‘placeholder’ values and not real values that would protect the public health and welfare.’’

Response 7: Because this comment is not related to EPA’s action on November 4, 2014, no changes will be made in response to this comment. EPA directs the commenter to EPA’s February 2007 issue paper on revising the AQI and setting a SHL for PM 2.5 as previously referenced in comment 1.

Comment 8: The commenter requested that EPA should explain why it has not revised the SHLs for PM 2.5 in 15 years. Response 8: Because this comment is not related to EPA’s action on November 4, 2014, no changes will be made in response to this comment. EPA directs the commenter to response number 1 and 5 above for further explanation of historical actions on EPA’s emergency episode planning requirements and guidance. IV. What action is EPA taking?

Upon review and consideration of comments received, EPA is taking final action to revise the Missouri SIP pertaining to Missouri regulation 10 CSR 10–6.130, ‘‘Controlling Emissions During Episodes of High Air Pollution Potential.’’ Based upon review of the state’s SIP revision and relevant requirements of the CAA, EPA believes that this revision meets applicable requirements and does not adversely impact air quality in Missouri. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

In this rule, 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 the Missouri Code of State Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the **ADDRESSES** section of this preamble for more information).

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 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 CAA. 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. );


### 49916 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 159 / Tuesday, August 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

• 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 Clean Air Act; 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 and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

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 19, 2015. 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. 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 4, 2015. Mark Hague, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

**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 AA—Missouri**

■ 2. In § 52.1320 the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising the entry for 10–6.130 as follows:

**§ 52.1320 Identification of plan.**
* * * * *

(c)* * *



### EPA-A PPROVED 

### M ISSOURI 

### R EGULATIONS

Missouri citation Title State effective

date EPA approval date Explanation

Missouri Department of Natural Resources

** * * * * *

Chapter 6—Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the State of Missouri

** * * * * *10–6.130 ...................................... Controlling Emissions During Episodes of High Air Pollution Potential. 12/30/13 8/18/15, [Insert **Federal Register** citation]

.

** * * * * *

* * * * * [FR Doc. 2015–20249 Filed 8–17–15; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**


### 49917 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 159 / Tuesday, August 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

**DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE**

**National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration** 

**50 CFR Part 648**

**[Docket No. 150623545–5545–01]**

**RIN 0648–XE015**

**Revisions to Framework Adjustment 53 to the Northeast Multispecies**  **Fishery Management Plan and Sector Annual Catch Entitlements; Updated**  **Annual Catch Limits for Sectors and the Common Pool for Fishing Year**  **2015**

**AGENCY :**  National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

**ACTION :**  Temporary final rule; adjustment to specifications.

**SUMMARY :**  Based on the final Northeast multispecies sector rosters submitted as of May 1, 2015, we are adjusting the fishing year 2015 specification of annual catch limits for commercial groundfish vessels, as well as sector annual catch entitlements and common pool allocations for groundfish stocks. This revision to fishing year 2015 catch levels is necessary to account for changes in the number of participants electing to fish in either sectors or the common pool fishery. This action details unused sector quotas that may be carried over from fishing year 2014 to fishing year 2015. This action also reduces the fishing year 2015 common pool allocation of Eastern Georges Bank cod and adjusts common pool incidental catch limits to account for a common pool fishing year 2014 overage. **DATES :**  Effective August 17, 2015, through April 30, 2016.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  William Whitmore, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281–9128.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) developed Amendment 16 to the Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP), in part, to establish a process for setting groundfish annual catch limits (also referred to as ACLs or catch limits) and accountability measures. Framework Adjustment (Framework) 53 set annual catch limits for groundfish stocks and three jointly managed U.S./Canada stocks for fishing year 2015. We recently approved Framework 53, which became effective on May 1, 2015 (80 FR 25110).

We also recently approved fishing year 2015 sector operations plans and allocations (80 FR 25143; May 2, 2015; ‘‘sector final rule’’). A sector receives an allocation of each stock, or annual catch entitlement (referred to as ACE, or allocation), based on its members’ catch histories. State-operated permit banks also receive an allocation that can be transferred to qualifying sector vessels. The sum of all sector and state-operated permit bank allocations is referred to as the sector sub-ACL. Whatever groundfish allocations remain after sectors and state-operated permit banks receive their allocations are then allocated to the common pool ( i.e., vessels not enrolled in a sector).

This rule adjusts the fishing year 2015 sector and common pool allocations based on final sector membership as of May 1, 2015. Since the final rules are not effective until the beginning of the fishing year (May 1), permits enrolled in a sector and the vessels associated with those permits have until April 30, the last day prior to the beginning of a new fishing year, to withdraw from a sector and fish in the common pool. As a result, the actual sector enrollment for the new fishing year is unknown when the specifications (in this case, Framework 53) and sector final rules publish. To address this issue, each year we publish an adjustment rule modifying sector and common pool allocations based on final sector enrollment. If the sector allocation increases as a result of sector membership changes, the common pool allocation decreases—the opposite is true as well. The Framework 53 and the fishing year 2015 sector proposed and final rules both explained that sector enrollments may change and that there would be a need to adjust the sub-ACLs and ACEs accordingly.

Adjustments to sector ACEs and the sub-ACLs for sectors and the common pool are typically minimal as historically there has been little change in sector enrollment. Tables 1, 2, and 3 explain the revised fishing year 2015. Table 4 compares the allocation changes between the sector final rule and this adjustment rule. Vessels currently enrolled in sectors have accounted for approximately 99 percent of the historical groundfish landings. This year’s sector final rule specified sector ACEs based on the 842 permits enrolled in sectors on February 25, 2015. As of May 1, 2015, there are 838 NE multispecies permits enrolled in sectors, which means four permits elected to leave sectors and operate in common pool for fishing year 2015.

**BILLING CODE 3510–22–P**