Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 55225 

EPA APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE TEXAS SIP 

State citation Title/subject 

State approval/submittal date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Chapter 101—General Air Quality Rules 

Subchapter A—General Rules 

*******

Section 101.28 ........... Stringency Determination for Federal Operating Permits.12/1/1999 9–10–13 [Insert FR page number where 

document begins].

*******

Chapter 122—Federal Operating Permits Program 

*******

Subchapter C—Initial Permit Issuances, Revisions, Reopening, and Renewals 

Division 2—Permit Revisions 

Section 122.215 ......... Minor Permit Revisions ............................ 5/9/2001 9–10–13 [Insert FR page number where 

document begins].

Section 122.216 ......... Applications for Minor Permit Revisions .. 5/9/2001 9–10–13 [Insert FR page number where 

document begins].

Section 122.217 ......... Procedures for Minor Permit Revisions ... 11/20/2002 9–10–13 [Insert FR page number where 

document begins].

Section 122.218 ......... Minor Permit Revision Procedures for 

Permit Revisions Involving the Use of 

Economic Incentives, Marketable Permits, and Emissions Trading.

5/9/2001 9–10–13 [Insert FR page number where 

document begins].

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–21868 Filed 9–9–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0800; FRL–9900–69- 

Region9] 

Determination of Attainment for the 

Chico Nonattainment Area for the 2006 

Fine Particle Standard; California; 

Determination Regarding Applicability 

of Clean Air Act Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

determine that the Chico nonattainment 

area in Butte County, California has 

attained the 2006 24-hour fine particle 

(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS or standard). This 

determination is based upon complete, 

quality-assured, and certified ambient 

air monitoring data showing that this 

area has monitored attainment of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based on 

the 2010–2012 monitoring period. Based 

on the above determination, the 

requirements for this area to submit an 

attainment demonstration, together with 

reasonably available control measures, a 

reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, 

and contingency measures for failure to 

meet RFP and attainment deadlines are 

suspended for so long as the area 

continues to attain the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

DATES: This rule is effective on October 

10, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0800 for 

this action. Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the 

docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps, multi-volume 

reports), and some may not be publicly 

available in either location (e.g., 

Confidential Business Information). To 

inspect the hard copy materials, please 

schedule an appointment during normal 

business hours with the contact listed in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Ungvarsky, (415) 972–3963, or by email 

at ungvarsky.john@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, wherever 

‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used, we mean 

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of EPA’s Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments 

III. EPA’s Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Summary of EPA’s Proposed Action 

On October 30, 2012 (77 FR 65651), 

EPA proposed to determine that the 

Chico nonattainment area in California 

has attained the 2006 24-hour NAAQS 

for fine particles (generally referring to 

particles less than or equal to 2.5 

micrometers in diameter, PM 2.5). The 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is 35 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3), 

based on a 3-year average of the 98th 

percentile of 24-hour concentrations. 

The Chico PM2.5 nonattainment area 

includes the southwestern two-thirds of 

Butte County, California. Butte County 

lies in the central portion of northern 

California’s Sacramento Valley Air 

Basin, which stretches from Sacramento 

County in the south to Shasta County in 

the north. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
55226 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

1See letter from Sylvia Vanderspek, Chief, Air 

Quality Data Branch, Planning and Technical 

Support Division, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, 

certifying calendar year 2012 ambient air quality 

data and quality assurance data, May 16, 2013. 

2EPA established the Implementation Rule 

pursuant to subpart 1 (‘‘Nonattainment Areas in 

General’’) of part D (‘‘Plan Requirements for 

Nonattainment Areas’’) of title I of the CAA. 

Subpart 4 (‘‘Additional Provisions for Particulate 

Matter Nonattainment Areas’’) includes more 

prescriptive SIP nonattainment area requirements 

than those set forth in subpart 1. 

3For the purposes of evaluating the effects of this 

determination of attainment under subpart 4, we are 

considering Chico to be a ‘‘moderate’’ PM2.5

nonattainment area. Under section 188 of the CAA, 

all areas designated nonattainment areas under 

subpart 4 would initially be classified by operation 

of law as ‘‘moderate’’ nonattainment areas, and 

would remain moderate nonattainment areas unless 

and until EPA reclassifies the area as a ‘‘serious’’ 

nonattainment area. Accordingly, the evaluation of 

the potential impact of subpart 4 requirements is 

limited to those applicable to moderate 

nonattainment areas. Sections 189(a) and (c) of 

subpart 4 apply to moderate nonattainment areas 

and include: an attainment demonstration (section 

189(a)(1)(B)); provisions for RACM (section 

189(a)(1)(C)); and quantitative milestones 

demonstrating RFP toward attainment by the 

applicable attainment date (section 189(c)). In 

addition, EPA also evaluates the applicable 

requirements of subpart 1. 

In our proposed rule, we explained 

how EPA makes an attainment 

determination for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS by reference to complete, 

quality-assured, and certified data 

gathered at a State and Local Air 

Monitoring Station(s) (SLAMS) and 

entered into EPA’s Air Quality System 

(AQS) database and by reference to 40 

CFR 50.13 (‘‘National primary and 

secondary ambient air quality standards 

for PM2.5’’) and appendix N to [40 CFR] 

part 50 (‘‘Interpretation of the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

PM2.5’’). EPA proposed the 

determination of attainment for the 

Chico nonattainment area based upon a 

review of the monitoring network and 

the ambient air quality data collected at 

the monitoring sites during the 2009– 

2011 period. The monitoring network in 

the area is operated by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). Based on 

these reviews, EPA found that complete, 

quality-assured and certified data for the 

Chico nonattainment area showed that 

the 24-hour design value for the 2009– 

2011 period was equal to or less than 35 

m/m3 at the area’s SLAMs monitor site. 

Since publication of our October 30, 

2012 proposal, CARB has entered data 

into AQS for the final two quarters of 

2012 and the first quarter of 2013, and 

has certified the data for 2012.1 Thus, 

we now have complete, quality-assured, 

and certified data for 2010–2012. 

Because we make determinations of 

attainment based on the most recent 

three years of complete, quality-assured 

and certified data, we have updated the 

proposed determination of attainment 

(which had been based on 2009–2011 

data) to reflect the 2010–2012 period. 

Specifically, we have updated table 1 

(shown below) from the proposed rule 

to reflect the data for 2012. As shown in 

table 1, the design value (34 mg/m3) in 

the Chico nonattainment area for the 

2010–2012 period is less than 35 mg/m3

and thus shows that the area has 

attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard. Therefore, we are taking final 

action today to determine that the Chico 

nonattainment area has attained the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard based on 

complete, quality-assured and certified 

data for 2010–2012. Preliminary data for 

2013 (not shown in table 1 but included 

in the docket for this action) show that 

the area continues to attain the 

standard. 

TABLE 1—2009–2012 24-HOUR PM2.5 MONITORING SITE AND DESIGN VALUES FOR THE CHICO NONATTAINMENT AREA. 

Monitoring site a

AQS site 

identification 

No. 

98th percentile 

(μg/m3) 

Design values 

(μg/m3) 

2009 2010 2011 2012 b 2009–2011 2010–2012 b

Chico-Manzanita .......... 06–007–0002 30.0 29.0 46.2 26.3 35 34 

Chico-East .................... 06–007–0008 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

aThe Chico monitoring site was moved in 2012 to address siting issues, and EPA has approved this network modification request. See August 

22, 2013 letter from Meredith Kurpius, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to Michael Benjamin, Chief, Monitoring and Laboratory Division, CARB. bThe 2012 98th percentile and design value are calculated using January 1 through June 30, 2012 data from the Chico-Manzanita site and 

July 1 through December 31, 2012 data from the new Chico-East site. 

Source: AQS Design Value and Raw Data Reports, August 9, 2013. 

In our proposed rule, based on the 

proposed determination of attainment, 

we also proposed to apply EPA’s Clean 

Data Policy to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

and thereby suspend the requirements 

for this area to submit an attainment 

demonstration and associated 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM), a reasonable further progress 

(RFP) plan, and contingency measures 

for so long as the area continues to 

attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

See pages 65653–65655 of our October 

30, 2012 proposed rule. In proposing to 

apply the Clean Data Policy to the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, we explained 

how we are applying the same statutory 

interpretation with respect to the 

implications of clean data 

determinations that the Agency has long 

applied in regulations for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS and in 

individual rulemakings for the 1-hour 

ozone, PM10 and lead NAAQS. See 78 

FR 65651, at 65654 (October 30, 2012). 

EPA notes that on January 4, 2013, in 

Natural Resources Defense Council v. 

EPA, the D.C. Circuit remanded to EPA 

the ‘‘Final Clean Air Fine Particle 

Implementation Rule’’ (72 FR 20586, 

April 25, 2007) and the 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)’’ final rule (73 FR 28321, May 

16, 2008) (collectively, ‘‘1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule’’ or 

‘‘Implementation Rule’’). 706 F.3d 428 

(D.C. Cir. 2013). While the D.C. Circuit, 

in its January 4, 2013 decision, 

remanded the 1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule to EPA to repromulgate the Implementation Rule 

pursuant to subpart 4,2 the court did not 

address the merits of that regulation, nor 

cast doubt on EPA’s interpretation of the 

statutory provisions under its Clean 

Data Policy. 

EPA has taken the Court’s decision 

into consideration in evaluating the 

effects of a determination of attainment 

for the Chico nonattainment area under 

subpart 4, in addition to subpart 1.3

Pursuant to EPA’s Clean Data Policy 

interpretation, a determination that the 

area has attained the standard suspends 

the State’s obligation to submit 

attainment-related planning 

requirements of subpart 4 (as well as the 

applicable provisions of subpart 1) for 

so long as the area continues to attain 

the standard. These include 

requirements to submit an attainment 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 55227 

4See, e.g., 75 FR 6571 (February 10, 2010) (Baton 

Rouge, Louisiana area); 71 FR 6352 (February 8, 

2006) (Ajo, Arizona area); 71 FR 13021 (March 14, 

2006) (Yuma, Arizona area); 71 FR 40023 (July 14, 

2006) (Weirton, West Virginia area); 71 FR 44920 

(August 8, 2006) (Rillito, Arizona area); 71 FR 

63642 (October 30, 2006) (San Joaquin Valley, 

California area); 72 FR 14422 (March 28, 2007) 

(Miami, Arizona area); and 75 FR 27944 (May 19, 

2010) (Coso Junction, California area). Thus EPA 

has established that, under subpart 4, an attainment 

determination suspends the obligations to submit 

an attainment demonstration, RACM, RFP, 

contingency measures, and other measures related 

to attainment. 

demonstration, RFP, RACM, and 

contingency measures, because the 

purpose of these provisions is to help 

reach attainment, a goal that has already 

been achieved. Thus, under both 

subpart 1 and subpart 4, a determination 

of attainment suspends a state’s 

obligations to submit attainment-linked 

planning requirements for so long as the 

area continues in attainment. 

EPA has long applied its Clean Data 

interpretation under subpart 4 in 

implementing the PM10 standard.4 In 

EPA’s proposed and final rulemakings 

determining that the San Joaquin Valley 

nonattainment area attained the PM10

standard, EPA set forth at length its 

rationale for applying the Clean Data 

Policy to subpart 4. The Ninth Circuit 

upheld EPA’s final rulemaking, and 

specifically EPA’s Clean Data Policy, in 

the context of subpart 4. Latino Issues 

Forum v. EPA, supra. Nos. 06–75831 

and 08–71238 (9th Cir.), Memorandum 

Opinion, March 2, 2009. In rejecting 

petitioner’s challenge to the Clean Data 

Policy under subpart 4 for PM10, the 

Ninth Circuit stated, ‘‘As the EPA 

explained, if an area is in compliance 

with PM10 standards, then further 

progress for the purpose of ensuring 

attainment is not necessary.’’ 

EPA is determining, based on the 

most recent three years of complete, 

quality-assured data meeting the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix N, that the Chico 

nonattainment area is currently 

attaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. In conjunction with and based 

upon our determination that Chico 

nonattainment area has attained and is 

currently attaining the standard, EPA is 

also determining that the obligation to 

submit the following attainment-related 

planning requirements is not applicable 

for so long as the area continues to 

attain the PM2.5 standard: The part D, 

subpart 4 obligations to provide an 

attainment demonstration pursuant to 

section 189(a)(1)(B); the RACM 

provisions of section 189(a)(1)(C); the 

RFP provisions of section 189(c); and 

the related attainment demonstration, 

RACM, RFP and contingency measure 

provisions requirements of subpart 1, 

section 172. This determination does 

not constitute a redesignation to 

attainment under CAA section 

107(d)(3). 

Please see the October 30, 2012 

proposed rule for more detailed 

information concerning the PM2.5

NAAQS, designations of PM2.5

nonattainment areas, the regulatory 

basis for determining attainment of the 

NAAQS, the Chico nonattainment area’s 

PM2.5 monitoring network, and EPA’s 

review and evaluation of the data. 

II. Public Comments 

EPA’s proposed rule provided a 30- 

day public comment period. We 

received no comments. 

III. EPA’s Final Action 

For the reasons provided in the 

proposed rule and summarized herein, 

EPA is taking final action to determine 

that the Chico nonattainment area in 

California has attained the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS based on three years of 

complete, quality-assured, and certified 

data in AQS for 2010–2012. Preliminary 

data for 2013 show that this area 

continues to attain the NAAQS. 

EPA is also taking final action, based 

on the above determination of 

attainment, to suspend the requirements 

for the Chico nonattainment area to 

submit an attainment demonstration 

and associated RACM, a RFP plan, 

contingency measures, and any other 

planning SIPs related to attainment of 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for so 

long as the area continues to attain the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA’s final 

action is consistent and in keeping with 

its long-held interpretation of CAA 

requirements, as well as with EPA’s 

regulations for similar determinations 

for ozone (see 40 CFR 51.918) for the 

1997 8-hour ozone and in individual 

rulemakings for the 1-hour ozone, PM10

and lead NAAQS. 

Today’s final action does not 

constitute a redesignation of the Chico 

nonattainment area to attainment for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS under CAA 

section 107(d)(3) because we have not 

yet approved a maintenance plan for the 

Chico nonattainment area as meeting 

the requirements of section 175A of the 

CAA or determined that the area has 

met the other CAA requirements for 

redesignation. The classification and 

designation status in 40 CFR part 81 

remain nonattainment for this area until 

such time as EPA determines that 

California has met the CAA 

requirements for redesignating the 

Chico nonattainment area to attainment. 

If the Chico nonattainment area 

continues to monitor attainment of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 

requirements for the area to submit an 

attainment demonstration and 

associated RACM, a RFP plan, 

contingency measures, and any other 

planning requirements related to 

attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS will remain suspended. If after 

today’s action EPA subsequently 

determines, after notice-and-comment 

rulemaking in the Federal Register, that 

the area has violated the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS, the basis for the 

suspension of the attainment planning 

requirements for the area would no 

longer exist, and the area would 

thereafter have to address such 

requirements. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This final action makes a 

determination of attainment based on 

air quality and suspends certain federal 

requirements, and thus, this action 

would not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. For this reason, the final 

action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• 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.); 

• 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 CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
55228 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this final action does not 

have tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP 

obligations discussed herein do not 

apply to Indian Tribes, and thus this 

action will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

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 November 12, 2013. 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate 

Matter, Sulfur oxides, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: August 22, 2013. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

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 F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.247 is amended by 

adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 52.247 Control Strategy and Regulations: 

Fine Particle Matter. 

* * * * * 

(d) Determination of Attainment: 

Effective October 10, 2013, EPA has 

determined that, based on 2010 to 2012 

ambient air quality data, the Chico PM2.5

nonattainment area has attained the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. This 

determination suspends the 

requirements for this area to submit an 

attainment demonstration, associated 

reasonably available control measures, a 

reasonable further progress plan, 

contingency measures, and other 

planning SIPs related to attainment for 

as long as this area continues to attain 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. If EPA 

determines, after notice-and-comment 

rulemaking, that this area no longer 

meets the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, 

the corresponding determination of 

attainment for that area shall be 

withdrawn. 

[FR Doc. 2013–21877 Filed 9–9–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 120918468–3111–02] 

RIN 0648–XC856 

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 trawl catcher/processors to catcher 

vessels using hook-and-line 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 September 5, 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 trawl catcher/

processors (C/Ps) in the Western 

Regulatory Area of the GOA is 496 

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 

trawl C/Ps will not be able to harvest 

100 mt of the 2013 Pacific cod TAC 

allocated to those vessels under 

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

§ 679.20(a)(12)(ii)(B), the Regional 

Administrator has also determined that 

catcher vessels using hook-and-line 

currently have the capacity to harvest 

this excess allocation and reallocates 

100 mt to catcher vessels using hookand-line gear in the Western Regulatory 

Area of the GOA. 

The harvest specifications for Pacific 

cod in the Western 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: 396 mt for 

trawl C/Ps and 390 mt for vessels using 

hook-and-line 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 trawl C/Ps to vessels 

using hook-and-line gear. Since the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES