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

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 (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), 

ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) or 

Particulate Matter—10 Micron (PM10) 

and 2.5 Micron (PM2.5) 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 


rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 PM2.5 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 (PM2.5) 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5. 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 (SOX), PM, carbon 

monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), 

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 

(PM2.5) NAAQS,1 the 2009 Infrastructure 

SIP Guidance for the 2006 PM2.5

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 

NO2, 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2), 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. 


rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 159 / Tuesday, August 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 49915 

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 PM2.5 standards 

updated the AQI breakpoint values for 

PM2.5. 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 PM2.5. 

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 PM2.5 specifically and 

do not identify a significant harm level 

or priority classification levels for PM2.5, 

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 PM2.5 levels 

greater than 140.4 mg/m3 since 2006. 

The EPA has evaluated PM2.5 regulatory 

monitoring data in Missouri since 2006 

and have confirmed that no values 

greater than 140.4 mg/m3 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 . . . PM2.5

sources) and public communication as 

needed.’’ Thus, the absence of a 

significant harm level and classification 

levels for PM2.5 are not relevant, if 

Missouri were required to develop a 

contingency plan for purposes of PM2.5, 

which it is not at this time. However, 

EPA notes that the state regulation is 

applicable to ‘‘all emissions’’ including 

PM2.5 and therefore the provisions of the 

state regulation apply to PM2.5 as well. 

Comment 6: The commenter requests 

clarification regarding the 

‘‘placeholder’’ AQI levels and SHLs for 

PM2.5 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 

PM2.5, EPA directs the commenter to 

EPA’s February 2007 issue paper on 

revising the AQI and setting a SHLs for 

PM2.5 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 PM2.5 as previously 

referenced in comment 1. 

Comment 8: The commenter 

requested that EPA should explain why 

it has not revised the SHLs for PM2.5 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.); 


rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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-APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS

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 


rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 159 / Tuesday, August 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 49917 

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 


rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES