### 31049 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 104 / Friday, May 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

EPA A PPROVED 

### R EGULATIONS IN THE 

### T EXAS 

### SIP—Continued

State citation Title/subject State approval/ submittal

date EPA approval date Explanation

*******

**Chapter 106—Permits by Rule**

Subchapter A—General Requirements

******* Section 106.4 .......................... Requirements for Permitting by Rule. 04/20/2011 05/30/2014 [Insert FR page number where document begins].

*******

* * * * *

■ 3. In § 52.2303 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(1)(x) and revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows.

**§ 52.2303 Significant deterioration of air quality.** 

(a) * * * (1) * * * (x) June 30, 2014 (as revised by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality on April 20, 2011 and submitted on May 19, 2011) to address PSD permitting requirements for PM 2.5 promulgated by EPA on May 16, 2008, October 20, 2010, and December 9,
2013.

(2) The Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Supplement document, submitted October 26, 1987 (as adopted by the TACB on July 17, 1987) and revised on July 2, 2010, to remove paragraphs (7)(a) and (7)(b). See EPA’s final approval action on January 6, 2014.
* * * * * [FR Doc. 2014–12474 Filed 5–29–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R10–OAR–2014–0455: FRL–9911–64– Region–10]** 

**Adequacy Determination for the Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma, Washington PM**  10 **State Implementation Plan for Transportation Conformity Purposes** 

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

**ACTION :**  Notice of adequacy determination.

**SUMMARY :**  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is notifying the public of its finding that the Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma second 10-year limited maintenance plan (LMP) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of a nominal 10 microns or less (PM 10 ) is adequate for transportation conformity purposes. The LMP was submitted to the EPA by the State of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology or the State) on November 25, 2013. As a result of our adequacy finding, regional emissions analyses will no longer be required as part of the transportation conformity demonstrations for PM 10 for the Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma areas.

**DATES :**  This finding is effective June 16,
2014.
**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  The finding will be available at the EPA’s conformity Web site: http:// www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/ transconf/adequacy.htm . You may also contact Dr. Karl Pepple, U.S. EPA, Region 10 (OAWT–107), 1200 Sixth Ave., Suite 900, Seattle WA 98101; (206) 553–1778; or by email at pepple.karl@
epa.gov

. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  This action provides notice of the EPA’s adequacy finding regarding the second 10-year PM 10 limited maintenance plan for Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma (LMP) for purposes of transportation conformity. The EPA’s finding was made pursuant to the adequacy review process for implementation plan submissions delineated at 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1) under which the EPA reviews the adequacy of a state implementation plan (SIP) submission prior to the EPA’s final action on the implementation plan.

The State submitted the LMP to the EPA on November 25, 2013. Pursuant to 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1), the EPA notified the public of its receipt of this plan and its review for an adequacy determination on the EPA’s Web site and requested public comment by no later than January 10, 2014. Additionally, the EPA announced the public comment period on the entire LMP in the Federal Register on December 26, 2013 (78 FR 78311). The EPA received a request to extend the comment period and announced a comment period extension to March 10, 2014 in a notice published on February 6, 2014 (79 FR 7126). The EPA received no comments on the on-road vehicle portion of the plan during the comment period. As part of our review, we also reviewed comments on the LMP submitted to the State of Washington during the State’s public process. There were no adverse comments directed at the on-road portion of the plan that were submitted during the State hearing process regarding the new Plan.

However, the EPA did receive adverse comments on potential future emissions in the non-road portion of the LMP. Nevertheless, the EPA believes it is appropriate to find this LMP adequate for purposes of transportation conformity while the EPA continues to review the plan and comments received. This adequacy finding is not dispositive of the EPA’s ultimate approval or disapproval of the LMP.

The EPA notified Ecology in a letter dated April 9, 2014 (adequacy letter), subsequent to the close of the EPA comment period, that the EPA had found the LMP to be adequate for use for transportation conformity purposes. A copy of the adequacy letter and its enclosure are available in the docket for this action and at the EPA’s conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm

.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 93.109(l), limited maintenance plans are not required to contain on-road motor vehicle emissions budgets. Accordingly, as a result of this adequacy finding, regional emissions analyses will no longer be required as a part of the transportation conformity demonstrations for PM 10 for


### 31050 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 104 / Friday, May 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

the Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma areas. However, other conformity requirements still remain such as consultation (40 CFR 93.112), transportation control measures (40 CFR 93.113), and project level analysis (40 CFR 93.116).

Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. Transportation conformity to a SIP means that on-road transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards. The minimum criteria by which we determine whether a SIP is adequate for conformity purposes are specified at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). The EPA’s analysis of how the LMP satisfies these criteria is found in the adequacy letter and its enclosure. The EPA’s adequacy review is separate from the EPA’s SIP completeness review and it is not dispositive of the EPA’s ultimate action on the SIP.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–767Iq. Dated: May 23, 2014. Michelle L. Pirzadeh, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

[FR Doc. 2014–12604 Filed 5–29–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE**

**National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration** 

**50 CFR Part 648**

**[Docket No. 131030919–4436–02]**

**RIN 0648–BD73**

**Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act**  **Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast**  **Multispecies Fishery; Reporting Requirements; Unused Catch**  **Carryover**

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

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  NMFS is implementing two measures in this rulemaking: A requirement for daily Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) catch reporting for vessels declared to fish in the Eastern U.S./Canada Area; and the de minimis amount of unused fishing year (FY) 2013 sector annual catch entitlement (ACE) that may be carried over, beginning in FY 2014, without being subject to potential accountability measures. The revision to the reporting requirement is necessary to ensure accurate and timely Eastern U.S./ Canada Area catch reporting for quota monitoring purposes. The de minimis carryover amount is necessary to complete the carryover process NMFS described for FY 2014 in conjunction with the May 2013 rulemaking for Framework Adjustment 50 to the Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP).

**DATES :**  This rule is effective June 30, 2014. The de minimis carryover amount outlined in Table 1 in the preamble is effective June 30, 2014, through April 30, 2015.

**ADDRESSES :**  Copies of Framework 50 and its associated documents, including the environmental assessment (EA), the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) prepared by the Council and NMFS are available from John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, NMFS Northeast Regional Office (NERO), 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. The previously listed documents are also accessible via the Internet at: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/sfd/ sfdmulti.html.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  For information on the Eastern U.S./Canada Area reporting requirements in this rule contact Liz Sullivan, Fishery Management Specialist, phone: 978– 282–8493. For information on the unused ACE de minimis carryover amount, contact Mike Ruccio, Fishery Policy Analyst, phone: 978–281–9104.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  1. Background

Eastern U.S./Canada Area Daily VMS Reporting. Prior to FY 2013, the regulatory text for the catch monitoring/ attribution program for Georges Bank (GB) cod and haddock required that all GB cod and haddock caught on a trip in which a vessel fished in both the Western and Eastern U.S./Canada Areas be attributed to the Eastern Area. In practice, we attributed catch of these stocks to areas fished based on our understanding that Amendment 16 to the FMP intended this result; however, the regulatory text was inadvertently left unchanged from pre-Amendment 16

measures.

In commenting on a proposed rule for Amendment 48 to the FMP (78 FR 18188; March 25, 2013), which included a measure to correct this inadvertent language holdover, the New England Fishery Management Council (Council) objected to the proposed revision, stating it was inconsistent with their intent in Amendment 16. Because the proposed change was meant to reflect Council intent regarding Amendment 16, we withdrew its proposed revision, leaving the original text in place in the final rule (i.e., GB cod and haddock catch would be attributed to the Eastern U.S./Canada Area). We noted this change as an interim measure, but asked for comments as it varied from the proposed rule. We then received a second comment letter from the Council on the interim measure, retracting the first statement of intent, and supporting the approach we first proposed. The Council also suggested that the requirement for daily reporting of catch in the Eastern Area should be reinstituted as allowed under Amendment 16 through Regional Administrator authority to better ensure timely and accurate reporting for quota monitoring purposes.

Based on the second Council letter, we announced on July 10, 2013, that Eastern U.S./Canada Area catch monitoring was being changed from the interim method to a system that apportions catch based on area fished, consistent with the recommendation of the Council and the 2013 proposed rule measure. We published the final rule for this monitoring method on August 29, 2013 (78 FR 53363). Accounting for all FY 2013 trips has been retroactively revised from the interim approach to the area fished method. Such changes were considered to be within the purview of the Regional Administrator (§ 648.85(a)(3)(ii)(A)).

The Amendment 16 final rule (75 FR 18262; April 9, 2010) also intended to remove the requirement for sector vessels to submit daily VMS catch reports when declared into the U.S./ Canada Management Area, as well as the two Eastern U.S./Canada Special Access Programs (SAPs; the Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder/Haddock SAP and the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP), because the requirement for a weekly sector manager report was determined to be sufficient by the Regional Administrator. This intent was captured in the preamble of the proposed and final rules for Amendment 16; however, this change was not reflected in the regulatory text at § 648.85(a)(3)(v). Subsequently, the Council requested that we implement a daily reporting requirement for the Eastern U.S./Canada Area to address misreporting and ensure more accurate and timely reporting for this area. As part of the rulemaking on August 29, 2013 (78 FR 53363), we announced our intention to require sector vessels declared to fish in the Eastern U.S./ Canada Area to submit daily VMS catch