Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 73451 

the letter of offer and acceptance for a 

foreign military sales program that will 

require an acquisition. No respondents 

submitted public comments in response 

to the proposed rule. There are no 

changes from the proposed rule in the 

final rule. 

II. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 

13563 direct agencies to assess all costs 

and benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. This is not a significant 

regulatory action and, therefore, was not 

subject to review under section 6(b) of 

E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and 

Review, dated September 30, 1993. This 

rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 

804. 

III. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

A final regulatory flexibility analysis 

has been prepared consistent with the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, 

et seq., and is summarized as follows: 

This action is necessary because the 

directions to the contracting officer at 

PGI 225.7302 may have impact on 

prospective contractors, and therefore 

require relocation to the DFARS. The 

objective of this rule is to provide 

direction to the contracting officer on 

actions required to work with the 

prospective contractor to assist the DoD 

implementing activity in preparing the 

letter of offer and acceptance for a 

foreign military sales program that 

requires an acquisition. 

There were no comments in response 

to the initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis. The Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration did not file any 

comments. 

The rule will apply to approximately 

380 small entities, based on the FPDS 

data for FY 2011 of the number of 

noncompetitive contract awards to 

small business entities that exceed 

$10,000 and use FMS funds. 

There is no required reporting or 

recordkeeping. The rule requires the 

contracting officer to communicate with 

a prospective FMS contractor in order to 

assist the DoD implementing agency in 

preparation of the letter of offer and 

acceptance. The contracting officer may 

request information on price, delivery, 

and other relevant factors, and provide 

information to the prospective 

contractor with regard to the FMS 

customer. 

DoD does not expect the rule will 

have a significant economic impact on 

a significant number of small entities. 

No significant alternatives were 

identified that would accomplish the 

objectives of the rule. 

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The rule does not contain any 

information collection requirements that 

require the approval of the Office of 

Management and Budget under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

chapter 35). 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 225 

Government procurement. 

Manuel Quinones, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

Therefore, 48 CFR Part 225 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 225—FOREIGN ACQUISITION 

■ 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

Part 225 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR 

chapter 1. 

■ 2. Section 225.7302 is revised to read 

as follows: 

225.7302 Preparation of letter of offer and 

acceptance. 

For FMS programs that will require an 

acquisition, the contracting officer shall 

assist the DoD implementing agency 

responsible for preparing the Letter of 

Offer and Acceptance (LOA) by— 

(1) Working with prospective 

contractors to— 

(i) Identify, in advance of the LOA, 

any unusual provisions or deviations 

(such as those requirements for Pseudo 

LOAs identified at PGI 225.7301); 

(ii) Advise the contractor if the DoD 

implementing agency expands, 

modifies, or does not accept any key 

elements of the prospective contractor’s 

proposal; 

(iii) Identify any logistics support 

necessary to perform the contract (such 

as those requirements identified at PGI 

225.7301); and 

(iv) For noncompetitive acquisitions 

over $10,000, ask the prospective 

contractor for information on price, 

delivery, and other relevant factors. The 

request for information shall identify 

the fact that the information is for a 

potential foreign military sale and shall 

identify the foreign customer; and 

(2) Working with the DoD 

implementing agency responsible for 

preparing the LOA, as specified in PGI 

225.7302. 

[FR Doc. 2013–29153 Filed 12–5–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Part 231 

RIN 0750–AH76 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement: Unallowable 

Fringe Benefit Costs (DFARS Case 

2012–D038) 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD is issuing a final rule 

amending the Defense Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Supplement 

(DFARS) to explicitly state that fringe 

benefit costs that are contrary to law, 

employer-employee agreement, or an 

established policy of the contractor are 

unallowable. 

DATES: Effective December 6, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Susan Williams, telephone 571–372– 

6092. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

DoD published a proposed rule in the 

Federal Register at 78 FR 13606 on 

February 28, 2013, to revise the DFARS 

at 231.205–6 to implement the Director 

of Defense Pricing policy memo 

‘‘Unallowable Costs for Ineligible 

Dependent Health Care Benefits’’, dated 

February 17, 2012. This rule adds 

paragraph 231.205–6(m)(1) to explicitly 

state that fringe benefit costs that are 

contrary to law, employer-employee 

agreement, or an established policy of 

the contractor are unallowable. 

II. Discussion and Analysis of Public 

Comments 

DoD reviewed the public comments in 

the development of the final rule. A 

discussion of the comments and the 

changes made as a result of those 

comments is provided, as follows: 

A. Summary of Significant Changes 

from the Proposed Rule 

After consideration of a public 

comment, DoD determined that the 

reference to ‘‘incurred or estimated’’ 

within the DFARS text should be 

deleted. 

maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES

73452 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

B. Analysis of Public Comments 

Two respondents submitted 

comments on the proposed rule. 

1. Policy Memo Disagreement 

Comment: One respondent disagreed 

with the conclusions of the Director of 

Defense Pricing policy memorandum. 

However, the respondent agreed that 

contractors should monitor healthcare 

dependent eligibility to ensure only 

proper healthcare charges are included 

as an element of fringe benefit costs. 

Response: The memorandum 

emphasizes and clarifies existing 

policies but does not create new 

policies. These existing policies make 

fringe benefit costs unallowable when 

such costs are unreasonable or conflict 

with law, employer-employee 

agreement, or an established policy of 

the contractor. DoD shares the 

respondent’s belief that contractors 

should have adequate internal controls 

to ensure improper healthcare charges 

are excluded from fringe benefit costs. 

The rule encourages contractors to 

adopt reasonable internal controls to 

eliminate costs that are already 

unallowable. 

2. Broadening the Category of Fringe 

Benefits 

Comment: One respondent took 

exception to the rule addressing the 

broad category of fringe benefits when 

the Director of Defense Pricing policy 

memorandum only addresses the cost of 

health care benefits for ineligible 

dependents. 

Response: The policy at FAR 31.205– 

6(m) states, in part, that fringe benefit 

costs are allowable to the extent they are 

required by law, employer-employee 

agreement, or an established policy of 

the contractor. The DFARS policy memo 

addressed only the area that has 

experienced recent problems. 

Reasonable internal controls can 

significantly reduce the amount of 

ineligible dependent healthcare claims 

that are already unallowable if they fail 

to meet the conditions in FAR 31.205– 

6(m). The same logic applies to all 

fringe benefits. 

3. Immaterial and No-Impact 

Comment: One respondent asserted 

that industry-wide ineligible dependent 

costs are immaterial, and thus have no 

impact on contract billing or pricing. 

The respondent suggested that DoD 

should review the DCAA findings in its 

policy memo 09–PSP–016(R), dated 

August 4, 2009, before proceeding with 

further rulemaking. 

Response: Research indicates the rate 

of ineligible dependent claims can 

represent as much as 3 percent or more 

of total healthcare costs. The overall 

cost for ineligible dependent claims, 

which are often fraudulent, can be 

significant for large contractors that 

spend millions of dollars for dependent 

healthcare. Programs to reduce 

ineligible dependent healthcare claims 

have been shown to benefit both the 

contractor and its customers. Penalties 

may be assessed if unallowable 

dependent healthcare costs are 

contained in a final indirect cost rate 

proposal, or a final statement of costs 

incurred, or estimated to be incurred, 

under a fixed-price incentive contract. 

4. Cost Accounting Standard 

Comment: One respondent asserted 

that the treatment of ineligible fringe 

benefit costs as expressly unallowable 

does not comport with Cost Accounting 

Standard (CAS) 405 and its preambles. 

In the preamble of the original 

publication of CAS 405, the CAS Board 

explained its use of the term 

‘‘expressly’’ in the definition of 

‘‘expressly unallowable cost’’ as ‘‘. . . 

that which is in direct and unmistakable 

terms.’’ The respondent believed that 

‘‘fringe benefit costs . . . contrary to 

law, employer-employee agreement, or 

an established policy of the contractor’’ 

are not direct and unmistakable costs. 

Response: The rule makes fringe 

benefit costs expressly unallowable 

when such costs are contrary to law, 

employer-employee agreement, or an 

established policy of the contractor. The 

Director of Defense Pricing Policy 

determined these conditions are direct 

and unmistakable. 

5. Overlapping Protection 

Comment: One respondent asserted 

that the rule is unnecessary since the 

FAR cost principles already protect the 

Government. Contractors are currently 

required to exclude fringe benefit costs 

that do not meet the requirements for 

reasonableness per FAR 31.201–3. 

Response: The results of the DCAA 

audits have made it clear that coverage 

is not sufficiently clear. The intent of 

the rule is to make fringe benefit costs 

expressly unallowable when such costs 

conflict with law, employer-employee 

agreement, or an established policy of 

the contractor. Unallowable fringe 

benefit costs, such as ineligible 

dependent healthcare claims, 

unnecessarily increase the cost of 

Government contracts. Because 

contractors are already required to 

exclude unallowable costs from final 

indirect cost rate proposals or a final 

statement or cost incurred, penalties 

will only accrue to contractors that fail 

to comply with rules that already exist. 

6. Relationship to the Application of 

Penalties 

Comment: One respondent was 

concerned that the proposed rule does 

not conform to the FAR as it relates to 

the application of penalties. The 

respondent indicated that FAR 42.709– 

1 is limited to applying penalties only 

to unallowable costs included in an 

indirect cost proposal. The respondent 

further stated that there is no language 

in FAR 42.709–1 about ‘‘estimated’’ 

costs and because of this the respondent 

asserted that the reference to estimated 

costs in the proposed rule must be 

deleted. 

Response: While subsection FAR 

42.709–1 does not expressly use the 

term ‘‘estimated’’, this subsection does 

state that the penalties discussed in the 

subsection ‘‘apply to contracts covered 

by this section.’’ FAR 42.709, entitled 

‘‘Scope,’’ specifically covers the 

assessment of penalties for including 

unallowable indirect costs in indirect 

cost rate proposals, or the ‘‘final 

statement of costs incurred or estimated 

to be incurred . . .’’ (emphasis added). 

Nevertheless, DoD has deleted the 

phrase ‘‘incurred or estimated’’ from 

DFARS 231.205–6(m)(1). 

7. Test of Reasonableness 

Comment: One respondent suggested 

that the costs should be judged by the 

test of reasonableness and not treated as 

unallowable with the associated 

penalties. The proposed rule would 

make these costs unallowable, thus 

forcing companies to expend 

disproportionate sums to ensure no 

claims for costs include ineligible health 

care costs in order to avoid the 

penalties. According to the respondent, 

this would force companies to behave 

differently than companies in the 

commercial marketplace or the U.S. 

Government in managing these costs. 

Response: Ineligible fringe benefit 

costs are already unallowable under 

existing regulations. Thus, the test for 

reasonableness does not apply because 

an unallowable cost cannot, by 

definition be reasonable. Per FAR 

31.205–6(m), fringe benefit costs are 

only allowable to the extent they are 

reasonable and are required by law, 

employer-employee agreement, or an 

established policy of the contractor. The 

DFARS rule only makes expressly 

unallowable fringe benefit costs that 

contractors are already required to 

exclude from forward pricing rates, 

incurred cost proposals, and billings. 

Research indicates nearly 70 percent of 

commercial companies have 

implemented procedures to detect and 

eliminate ineligible dependent health 

maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 73453 

care claims in order to reduce costs and 

remain competitive. Therefore, the 

effect of the rule is to make the DFARS 

consistent with current commercial 

practice. 

8. Internal Controls 

Comment: One respondent asserted 

that, if a company’s internal controls are 

found to be unreasonable, the 

Government can cite the contractor for 

a business system deficiency and 

disallow cost. Dependent healthcare 

costs are allowable until eligibility 

ceases, so the Government should focus 

on the reasonableness of the company’s 

internal controls (i.e., reasonableness 

test) versus the allowability test. A 

company should not be required to pay 

penalties if it has adequate internal 

controls to prevent charging the 

Government for ineligible dependent 

healthcare costs or recover and credit 

those costs back to the Government 

when they are charged. 

Response: The rule makes ineligible 

dependent healthcare costs expressly 

unallowable, and subject to penalties, 

when such costs are contained in a final 

indirect cost rate proposal or a final 

statement of costs incurred, or estimated 

to be incurred, under a fixed-price 

incentive contract. Penalties may be 

waived in accordance with FAR 42.709– 

5(c). 

9. Exceeding the Actual Costs of 

Ineligible Benefits 

Comment: One respondent asserted 

that the costs of internal controls should 

not exceed the actual costs of the 

ineligible benefits. Treating the costs for 

ineligible dependent healthcare costs as 

unallowable is likely to force companies 

to spend more money than they would 

otherwise, in order to avoid the 

penalties associated with unallowable 

costs. The result will be increased 

allowable costs to the Government in 

exchange for little or no value. 

Response: Research indicates the cost 

of ineligible dependent health care 

claims often far exceeds the cost of 

dependent verification programs. DoD 

was unable to find any studies or other 

evidence indicating that the cost to 

detect ineligible claims is higher than 

the cost savings. 

10. Possible Disfavor for Those Who Are 

Fully or Partially Subject to CAS 

Comment: One respondent asserted 

that the proposed rule has the effect of 

discriminating against companies that 

are fully or partially subject to CAS. The 

respondent asserted that, for those fully 

subject to CAS and those partially 

subject to CAS, the potential risk for 

liability for claiming unallowable costs 

is significant, while companies that are 

not subject to CAS have no such 

liability and do not face the possibility 

of False Claims Act prosecutions, Civil 

False Claims Act damages, qui tam 

lawsuits or debarment/suspension. A 

rule that allows companies subject to 

CAS to use a reasonable method for 

dealing with these costs will reduce the 

cost to the companies and reasonably 

protect the government from paying for 

the costs of ineligible dependent 

healthcare costs. 

Response: The rule and, thus, the 

potential liability to incur penalties, 

apply equally to all contractors 

regardless of whether they are subject to 

CAS. Therefore, the rule does not 

discriminate against companies that are 

fully or partially subject to CAS. 

Additionally, the assertion that 

companies not subject to CAS do not 

face the possibility of False Claims Act 

prosecutions, Civil False Claims Act 

damages, qui tam lawsuits or 

debarment/suspension is inaccurate. 

III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 

13563 direct agencies to assess all costs 

and benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. This is not a significant 

regulatory action and, therefore, was not 

subject to review under section 6(b) of 

E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and 

Review, dated September 30, 1993. This 

rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 

804. 

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

A final regulatory flexibility analysis 

has been prepared consistent with the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, 

et seq., and is summarized as follows: 

This final rule amends the Defense 

Federal Acquisition Regulation 

Supplement (DFARS) at 231.205–6 to 

explicitly state that fringe benefit costs 

incurred or estimated that are contrary 

to law, employer-employee agreement, 

or an established policy of the 

contractor are unallowable. After 

consideration of a public comment, DoD 

determined that the reference to 

‘‘incurred or estimated’’ within the 

DFARS proposed rule text should be 

deleted. 

The objective of this final rule is to 

explicitly state that fringe benefit costs 

incurred or estimated that are contrary 

to law, employer-employee agreement, 

or an established policy of the 

contractor are unallowable. Although 

fringe benefit costs that do not meet 

these criteria are not allowable, the 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 

does not make them expressly 

unallowable. Specifying these fringe 

benefit costs are expressly unallowable 

in the DFARS makes the penalties at 

FAR 42.709–1 applicable if a contractor 

includes such unallowable fringe 

benefit costs in a final indirect cost rate 

proposal or in the final statement of 

costs incurred under a fixed-price 

incentive contract. 

No comments were filed by the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration in response to 

the proposed rule. 

DoD does not expect this final rule to 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

within the meaning of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., 

because this rule merely provides 

clarification of existing policies by 

expressly stating that fringe benefit costs 

incurred or estimated that are contrary 

to law, employer-employee agreement, 

or an established policy of the 

contractor are unallowable. 

The final rule imposes no reporting, 

recordkeeping, or other information 

collection requirements. 

There are no known significant 

alternatives to the rule. The impact of 

this rule on small business is not 

expected to be significant. 

V. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The rule does not contain any 

information collection requirements that 

require the approval of the Office of 

Management and Budget under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

chapter 35). 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 231 

Government procurement. 

Manuel Quinones, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

Therefore, 48 CFR part 231 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 231—CONTRACT COST 

PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES 

■ 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

part 231 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and CFR 

chapter 1. 

■ 2. Section 231.205–6 is amended by 

adding paragraph (m)(1) to read as 

follows: 

maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES

73454 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

231.205–6 Compensation for personal 

services. 

* * * * * 

(m)(1) Fringe benefit costs that are 

contrary to law, employer-employee 

agreement, or an established policy of 

the contractor are unallowable. 

[FR Doc. 2013–29151 Filed 12–5–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 120918468–3111–02] 

RIN 0648–XC976 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Reallocation of 

Pacific Cod in the Central Regulatory 

Area of the Gulf of Alaska Management 

Area 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; reallocation. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is reallocating the 

projected unused amount of Pacific cod 

from catcher vessels using trawl gear to 

catcher/processors using trawl gear in 

the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf 

of Alaska management area (GOA). This 

action is necessary to allow the 2013 

total allowable catch of Pacific cod in 

the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA 

to be harvested. 

DATES: Effective December 3, 2013, 

through 2400 hours, Alaska local time 

(A.l.t.), December 31, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Obren Davis, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

manages the groundfish fishery in the 

Gulf of Alaska exclusive economic zone 

according to the Fishery Management 

Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of 

Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

under authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act. Regulations governing 

fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance 

with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 

CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. 

Regulations governing sideboard 

protections for GOA groundfish 

fisheries appear at subpart B of 50 CFR 

part 680. 

The 2013 Pacific cod total allowable 

catch specified for catcher vessels using 

trawl gear in the Central Regulatory 

Area of the GOA is 15,065 metric tons 

(mt) as established by the final 2013 and 

2014 harvest specifications for 

groundfish in the GOA (78 FR 13162, 

February 26, 2013). The Administrator, 

Alaska Region (Regional Administrator) 

has determined that catcher vessels 

using trawl gear will not be able to 

harvest 1,000 mt of the 2013 Pacific cod 

TAC allocated to those vessels under 

§ 679.20(a)(12)(i)(B). In accordance with 

§ 679.20(a)(12)(ii)(B), the Regional 

Administrator has also determined that 

catcher/processors using trawl gear 

currently have the capacity to harvest 

this excess allocation and reallocates 

1,000 mt to catcher/processors using 

trawl gear. 

The harvest specifications for Pacific 

cod in the Central Regulatory Area of 

the GOA included in the final 2013 

harvest specifications for groundfish in 

the GOA (78 FR 13162, February 26, 

2013) is revised as follows: 14,065 mt 

for catcher vessels using trawl gear, and 

2,521 mt to catcher/processors using 

trawl gear. 

Classification 

This action responds to the best 

available information recently obtained 

from the fishery. The Assistant 

Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA 

(AA), finds good cause to waive the 

requirement to provide prior notice and 

opportunity for public comment 

pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is 

impracticable and contrary to the public 

interest. This requirement is 

impracticable and contrary to the public 

interest as it would prevent NMFS from 

responding to the most recent fisheries 

data in a timely fashion and would 

delay the reallocation of Pacific cod 

specified from catcher vessels using 

trawl gear to catcher/processors using 

trawl gear. Since the fishery is currently 

ongoing, it is important to immediately 

inform the industry as to the revised 

allocations. Immediate notification is 

necessary to allow for the orderly 

conduct and efficient operation of this 

fishery, to allow the industry to plan for 

the fishing season, and to avoid 

potential disruption to the fishing fleet 

as well as processors. NMFS was unable 

to publish a notice providing time for 

public comment because the most 

recent, relevant data only became 

available as of December 2, 2013. 

The AA also finds good cause to 

waive the 30-day delay in the effective 

date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(3). This finding is based upon 

the reasons provided above for waiver of 

prior notice and opportunity for public 

comment. 

This action is required by § 679.20 

and is exempt from review under 

Executive Order 12866. 

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

Dated: December 3, 2013. 

Sean F. Corson, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–29165 Filed 12–3–13; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 120918468–3111–02] 

RIN 0648–XC975 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Reallocation of 

Pacific Cod in the Western Regulatory 

Area of the Gulf of Alaska Management 

Area 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; reallocation. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is reallocating the 

projected unused amount of Pacific cod 

from catcher vessels using trawl gear to 

catcher vessels using hook-and-line gear 

and vessels using pot gear in the 

Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf of 

Alaska management area (GOA). This 

action is necessary to allow the 2013 

total allowable catch of Pacific cod in 

the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA 

to be harvested. 

DATES: Effective December 3, 2013, 

through 2400 hours, Alaska local time 

(A.l.t.), December 31, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Obren Davis, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

manages the groundfish fishery in the 

Gulf of Alaska exclusive economic zone 

according to the Fishery Management 

Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of 

Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

under authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act. Regulations governing 

fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance 

with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 

CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. 

Regulations governing sideboard 

protections for GOA groundfish 

fisheries appear at subpart B of 50 CFR 

part 680. 

The 2013 Pacific cod total allowable 

catch specified for catcher vessels using 

maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES